1 | P a g e

2 | P a g e

3 | P a g e

Acknowledgements

It is with great pride that I present the Student Submission as part of the QAA Institutional Review of the University of Gloucestershire. Leaning heavily on the views of the 2013/14 student cohorts obtained through the National Student Survey and other surveys dating back to 2010, the Student Submission identifies key points of excellent student experience and those areas that require some attention and development in the future.

These surveys have been analysed and organised numerous times over the last six months, supported by fellow colleagues in the Students’ Union (SU) and key personnel within the University. Therefore, I feel it is relevant to thank them.

From the University of Gloucestershire:

Maureen McLaughlin, Amanda Pill, Rachel Bryan.

Also, all the University staff who took the time to read the draft copies of the Student Submission and give constructive comments.

The Student Body:

The Student Representatives that took the time to participate in focus groups, complete surveys and gather feedback from fellow peers.

The student body, who took the time to complete the SU surveys created specifically to collate their views for inclusion in the Student Submission.

The Students’ Union:

I would also like to thank everyone in the SU who has supported me over the last six months; covering meetings, dealing with enquiries and accepting that this piece of work has been the main priority.

My fellow full-time officers: Rickesh Patel, Ben Parfitt and Catherine Innes.

A special thank you to Jenny Barnes, who has assisted in the analysis of all surveys, and helped me write a significant portion of the Student Submission. Without Jenny, we would not have been able to write such a comprehensive report.

The SU recognises the importance of the Student Submission. It is an opportunity to express the experience from a student perspective and propose ideas for consideration in order to develop the students’ best interests here at the University of Gloucestershire.

Louise Fensome, Education Officer (2013-2015) and Lead Student Representative.

January 2015

4 | P a g e

Introduction

The University of Gloucestershire’s Students’ Union (SU) has been invited by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) to participate in the Higher Education Review of the University. A lead student representative will write the Student Submission based on the views of the 8,107 students enrolled at the University of Gloucestershire on academic standards and quality at the University.

The SU is a completely separate organisation from the University. It is run by a group of permanent staff as well as part-time officers (current students) and four paid full-time officers (students who have been elected and who take a year out to work for us). Since 2011, we have become a charity; that is, we also have a Board of Trustees comprising a combination of students, full-time officers and trustees with a range of professional experience.

The SU has:

A Vision: To have a positive impact on all students at the University of Gloucestershire.

A Mission: To effectively represent our members by being a student-led and sustainable organisation, creating a better experience at the University of Gloucestershire.

Five Values:

• Helpful

• Professional

• Trustworthy

• Democratic

• Fun.

10 Promises to the Student Body:

1. We will help you improve your teaching and learning

2. We will help your employability

3. We will help you save money

4. We will help you make friends and have fun

5. We will help you stay safe

6. We will help you participate in sport

7. We will help you make a difference; locally and globally

8. We will be good at communicating

5 | P a g e

9. We will aid in the success of the University

10. We will be a well-governed and stable organization.

The SU represents students by sitting on University committees as well as local resident and council meetings. Our main aim is to make sure students receive quality teaching and learning; therefore, we run the student representation system as well as campus-life meetings with the University to provide student feedback. Democracy is at our core and we campaign actively on issues that are relevant to students.

The services we provide include volunteering, societies, sports clubs, Freshers’ Week, the summer ball, student media and jobshop, and we also promote weekly nightclub events. We employ student staff wherever possible. We do not run the campus bars but they are branded as SU spaces; we sit on the Management Committee, help run their events and decide on the products they serve to ensure they are student-friendly.

We have written a SU three-year strategy1 to ensure we are meeting the needs of our members. We have also created a SU Action Plan 14/152 to present our aims for the year to the student body.

1 [0114] Students’ Union 3-Year Strategy 2013-2016 2 [S026] SU ActionPlan 1415

6 | P a g e

Background to the University

The University of Gloucestershire received University status in 2001 and prior to 2010 operated across five campuses: The Park; Francis Close Hall; Pittville; Oxstalls; and a London campus (known as the Urban Learning Foundation). The University closed the London campus in 2010 and announced the closure of the Pittville campus and cessation of teaching in 2011. The closure of the Pittville campus resulted in the relocation of delivery of courses to The Park and Francis Close Hall. Hardwick campus (which comes under Francis Close Hall campus) is now used primarily by Art and Design students. Previously, this campus was used for sport provision prior to the opening of Oxstalls in 2002. It also housed some student and staff sports facilities, along with some central professional departments.

Currently, the University of Gloucestershire operates across three teaching campuses: The Park; Francis Close Hall (including Hardwick); and Oxstalls. As we are a split-campus University, we used surveys that all students were able to access online to gather student views.

The Student Submission is drawn from a variety of surveys undertaken by the University3. These are:

• International Student Barometer (Autumn 2012, Summer 2013, Autumn 2013, Summer 2014)4

• National Student Survey (2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014)5 • Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (2011, 2013)6 • Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (2010, 2012, 2014)7 • Students’ Union (SU) Survey 2014 (University Quality Survey Standards8, University

Quality Survey Opportunities9, University Quality Survey Enhancement10).

The data collated from these national surveys has been analysed, and the lead student representative also created a specific survey to increase the volume of detailed data for the Higher Education Review. In 2014, the response rate and sample size for each survey were as follows:

• National Student Survey: 71% response rate, 1405 respondents • International Student Barometer: 81% response rate, 161 respondents • Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (2013): 48.4% response rate, 61

respondents • Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey: 32.7% response rate, 278 respondents • SU Survey - University Quality Survey Standards: 31 respondents

3 [0108] Student Experience webpages, with summaries of NSS, PTES and PRES results 4 [S017] International Student Barometer 5 [S018] National Student Survey 6 [S019] Postgraduate Research Experience Survey 7 [S020] Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey 8 [S014] SU University Quality Survey Standards 9 [S015] SU University Quality Survey Opportunities 10 [S016] SU University Quality Survey Enhancement

7 | P a g e

• SU Survey - University Quality Survey Opportunities: 27 respondents • SU Survey - University Quality Survey Enhancement: 23 respondents.

Where available, open-text comments were drawn from surveys and used to express students’ views on specific questions asked within the Student Submission. These are the comments of students studying at the University of Gloucestershire, rather than partner bodies. Open-text comments from specific surveys that were available were:

• National Student Survey11 • Postgraduate Research Experience Survey12 • Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey1314 • SU Surveys151617.

The Student Submission was drafted by the lead student representative and SU staff. It was then discussed at appropriate committees, including: Board of Trustees, SU Executive Committee and School Representative18 meetings19.

Academic designation of the University is currently in transition in terms of faculties20. These are:

• Faculty of Applied Sciences • Faculty of Media, Arts and Technology • What was formally the Faculty of Business, Education and Professional Studies is

splitting, and is in transition this year. • The Business School will stand alone (incorporating Accountancy & Law and

Business and Management). • The Institute of Education and Public Services is standing alone until a new Head of

Education is appointed in January 2015, at which point the School of Education will join the Faculty of Media, Arts and Technology and the newly formed School of Health and Social Care will join Applied Sciences.

Different schools lie within each academic faculty designation:

Media, Art and Technology:

• School of Art & Design • School of Computing and Technology

11 [S021] 2021 National Student Survey open text comments 2014 12 [S022] 2022 Postgraduate Research Experience Survey open text comments 2013 13 [S023] 2023 Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey open text comments 2014 14 [S024] 2024 Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey open text comments 2012 15 [S014] 2014 SU University Quality Survey Standards 16 [S015] 2015 SU University Quality Survey Opportunities 17 [S016] 2016 SU University Quality Survey Enhancement 18 [0118] School Representative Job Description 19 [S011] Refresher School Rep training 20 [0002] University Structure as from 2014/15

8 | P a g e

• School of Humanities • School of Media

Institute of Education and Public Services:

• School of Education • School of Health and Social Care

Faculty of Applied Sciences:

• School of Leisure • School of Natural and Social Sciences • School of Sport and Exercise

Business School:

• School of Accounting and Law • School of Business and Management.

9 | P a g e

Section 1: Student Representative Body

The University of Gloucestershire’s Students’ Union (SU) has a good working relationship with the University at all levels; from support and academic staff to the University’s senior management tier. The SU has a monthly catch-up meeting with the University’s Senior Management Team, in which concerns can be addressed.

SU full-time officers and student representatives sit on the majority of committees21 within the University. Within the academic committee structure there are nine committees where a student representative is able to speak on behalf of the student body. In certain committees there will be a standing agenda item to discuss student matters; for example, the Academic Standards and Quality Committee. Within the council committee structure there are two committees out of nine where a student representative is involved; while within the management committee structure there are three committees out of eight where a student representative is involved in speaking on behalf of the student body.

The main services provided by the student representative body provide are voicing student opinion and ensuring any issues or desired changes are brought to the attention of the University. It also ensures that the University is aware of factors with which the student body is satisfied. The University ensures that student representatives are provided with multiple forums and mechanisms to have their voice heard, including termly Board of Studies meetings. The student representative body also has a significant function in ensuring the feedback loop is closed as best as possible.

The Student Submission has been approved by the SU Executive Committee. The Executive Committee is made up of elected students to represent all the different populations of students. Our Executive Committee includes seven part-time officers, and we have mirrored the same structure as the National Union of Students by electing seven liberation officers. Part-time officers represent education, employability, events, sports, sustainability, volunteering and welfare. Our seven liberation part-time officers represent black students, disabled students, international students, lesbian gay bi-sexual transgender queer (LGBTQ) students, part-time and mature students, postgraduate students and women. These students were elected to their voluntary posts in October and represent the student body.

The part-time officers link to SU strategy as they are Chairs of seven committees concentrating on five key points the SU looks to enhance for the student body. These committees are:

• SU Education Committee – helping students improve their teaching and learning • SU Employability Committee – helping students develop their skills • SU Events Committee – helping students make friends and have fun • SU Welfare Committee – helping students stay safe • SU Sports Committee – helping students participate in sport

21 [0116] Academic/Mgnt/Council Committee Structures showing SU and Student Representation 2014/15

10 | P a g e

• SU Volunteering Committee – helping students make a difference; locally and globally

• SU Executive Committee – helping the SU communicate well with the student body.

The seven part-time liberation officers are encouraged to sit on any committee they wish and represent students. They sit on the SU Executive Committee and bring the views of under-represented groups to matters being discussed.

The student voices, which have not been captured during this review, are collaborative partners; this is due to them undertaking their own QAA review. The SU does not have a formal role in relation to students studying at collaborative partnerships, but the SU offers help when it can; for example, offering training for student representatives at Gloucestershire College/supporting students in academic appeals.

11 | P a g e

Section 2: How effectively the University has addressed the recommendations of its last review

Following the QAA Audit in 2010, the University has taken a number of actions to address each of the advisable and desirable recommendations. Whilst students were not told specifically that a change was made as a result of a QAA recommendation, there are many areas where students have been involved in the change.

The Students’ Union (SU) has no comprehensive evidence regarding how effective the University is at sharing good practice. We feel that the University is making strides to ensure schools share best practice through funding the implementation of the School Representative system, which ensures schools are sharing best practice in terms of representation. Faculties share good practice through Faculty Symposia, where a day is often devoted to research and often involves postgraduate students.

Advisable Recommendations

1. Establish and formalise processes to ensure that the quality of learning opportunities for continuing students continues to be maintained once the proposed unified academic award incorporating new assessment regulations are introduced.

The University ensured that continuing students were not disadvantaged during the implementation of the unified academic award incorporating new assessment regulations. This was achieved by allowing discretion of the Examiner Board, with the option that where there was a potential for students to have been disadvantaged, the preferential regulations were used. The Academic Regulations Committee oversees and monitors the impact of the regulations on the student experience. Currently, there is no student representation on the Academic Regulations Committee; however, this is something the SU recognises and will look into for the future.

The SU believes that whilst continuing students were not consulted directly regarding the change to the assessment regulations, the discretionary process in conjunction with the process of monitoring the impact on continuing students was sufficient to avoid negative impact on the student experience. All students were informed about this change through their course handbooks. Due to time-limited issues, the Academic Regulations for Taught Provision are now fully implemented.

2. Implement and fully operate procedures for the rigorous monitoring of the success of postgraduate research programmes against internal and/or external indicators and targets.

12 | P a g e

As a result of a previous lack of transparent data on completion rates for postgraduate research programmes, the University has tightened its processes in this area by introducing an Annual Progress Board that formally reviews progress at the level of the individual student. This allows programme-level monitoring, and action to be taken to support any student not making satisfactory progress. Faculty Annual Reports, which include data on student admission, progression and awards for the provision, are received at the University Research Degrees Committee and then fed into the Annual Action Plan.

The SU agrees that this process has been made tighter, and it now leads to much more individual support for students who are completing their postgraduate research programme. As a result, the number of students required to withdraw has dropped from 2010 when four students were required to withdraw, to just one in 2014. Since 2010, this process has identified 70 students who are struggling with their progress, and an agreement of actions to resolve the situation was created for 59 students22.

A number of student representatives (one from each faculty) and a student advocate sit on the University Research Degrees Committee to review the Faculty Annual Reports.

3. Establish clearly defined mechanisms for formal progress reviews of postgraduate research students.

The Joint Annual Progress Report process was introduced in 2009/10. This requires that all students whose progress is in question undergo a face-to-face review by the Annual Progress Board. It allows the University to check on students’ progress towards completion of their research degrees. It provides students and their supervisors with the opportunity to have a frank discussion on the progress of the research, set clear targets and expectations for the coming year, and review professional development/training. Progress must then be signed off to the satisfaction of the Faculty Research Director and the relevant research supervisor. Since 2010, 70 students have been required to attend the Board.

This change was communicated via the former Postgraduate Research Centre, and is now communicated by the Research Administration Officer. It was also included in the Handbook of Regulations and Procedures.

The SU believes that this is a much more formal process, which has led to more timely completion for 59 students. The process of the Joint Annual Progress Report is explained clearly to students and their supervisors on Skills Forge23.

22 [S001] Progress Board 2010_2014 Summary 23 [0178] Skills Forge Student Guidance

13 | P a g e

Desirable Recommendations

4. Introduce a systematic mechanism for monitoring minor changes on programmes between periodic reviews.

The Programme Change Approval Panel (PCAP)24 now meets twice a year in each faculty to consider it can consider and approve minor changes to existing courses, including changes to course maps; for example, module additions. PCAP also now takes into account other changes introduced since the original or last validation. Where a significant change would be made to the programme specification, courses bring forward proposals for a full Periodic Review and Revalidation (PRR)25.

Some course changes are made as a result of student feedback (through course or School representatives, and module evaluations). Students are also consulted about programme changes at Boards of Studies (BoS) meetings26 .

The SU feels that the University is making good strides to ensure programme changes are student-led where possible, and that minor changes made to programmes via PCAP are monitored appropriately. The University reports changes to individual modules in module guides; however, these would normally only be seen by the next cohort. The University developed a ‘You Said, We Did’ initiative at module level to better publicise changes as a result of student feedback. However, we feel that the University could improve by developing more formal and frequent methods of informing students, who initially pushed for the change, of the outcome of the proposed change; usually, they would have already taken the specific module, so would not automatically be made aware of the benefits of the change.

5. Clarify to students and staff the communication channels available to students to bring forward their views and be involved in quality management processes.

In the previous review, QAA noted that it appeared unclear as to whether student representatives were full members of course Boards. Clarity has been restored, and the SU and University can now confirm that course representatives are full members of course BoS. It has now been agreed that only one student representative from each year of each course will be granted full membership (this can be any student representative that attends). Other student representatives may also attend the BoS to provide a view, but they will be listed as ‘in attendance’. Effectively, this change to membership has meant that quoracy is no longer adversely affected by reliance on full student representative attendance.

24 [0080] Exemplar PCAP minutes from each faculty Jan.July 2014 25 [0339] PRR BA Film Studies 6 March 2014 (approved by ASQC 1 May 2014) 26 [S028] Board of Studies Sports Management 1415

14 | P a g e

The University has provided clarity in terms of the informal and formal mechanisms that should be used to gather student feedback. Students are encouraged to partake in informal discussions with both academic and non-academic staff throughout the year, to flag-up both issues that have arisen and potential future concerns. Formal mechanisms include mid-term module evaluations, which ensure students who have raised an issue reap the benefits of changes made as a result of their feedback; from 2014/15, this process will include end-of-level evaluations.

The University has also worked in partnership with the SU to expand the student representation scheme, through the addition of School representatives. Students are now able to provide formal feedback via course representatives at course Boards and are also able to work with School representatives to make improvements to their student experience. More information about the student representation scheme is provided in section 4.5 of the self-evaluation document (SED) and paragraph 13 of the Student Submission.

The SU now trains student representatives at the beginning of each year. Included in the training is an explanation of the conduct of business at BoS meetings, the importance of feedback, and what feedback should be brought to which forum.

A change from end-of-module to mid-module evaluation was made as a result of low response rates. The SU feels that the process involved in switching to mid-term module evaluations and the introduction of level evaluations in place of end-of-module evaluations was appropriate. It was discussed at staff conferences and with the SU. The SU’s view was that the University would receive improved feedback if students were asked to complete fewer surveys each year; that is, only one per semester. It is believed that end-of-level evaluations will help students think holistically about their modules of study across the year. The SU is interested to see whether this change will increase the number of students filling out mid-module evaluations and end-of-level surveys.

Open-text comments from the outcomes of the National Student Survey indicate that students feel positively that changes are made as a result of these mechanisms. “When students give feedback on the modules and how they could be improved, I feel that they really do take our opinions into account and alter the modules accordingly.” “Most staff members seem keen to take on feedback and improve for the future.” “At the end of each module, I was able to give feedback to a student rep and was then given feedback on what action was taken depending on the level of the issue (vote in class), which makes the course better.” A number of course representatives were able to comment on improvements made as a result of feedback through these mechanisms. However, following discussions with a group of course representatives, an Internal Audit of Student Engagement conducted in 2013/2014 also suggested that; ‘where it is not possible to make changes to courses or take action on other issues the group felt that lecturers

15 | P a g e

should say so rather than providing no feedback at all, suggesting that students do not always feel they get feedback on why things have not changed’27. The SU still has concerns about how students are informed about large-scale changes; for example, the enhanced student year (see question 26), and the level to which students are involved in implementing changes. However, the SU recognises that the University is trying to involve and listen to students more. It has been monitoring carefully the process of large-scale changes, and has gathered feedback on all large-scale changes from School representatives who have been able to discuss the changes with course representatives and students.

6. Develop a clearer communication, evaluation and dissemination strategy in approaching change and developments.

The University has adopted a number of initiatives for feeding back to the student body on changes that have been made. The most well-known of these is the ‘You Said: We Did’ campaign run by the SU to respond to issues raised by the student body at Campus Life Group events. It has also developed several other methods to disseminate information at module level, including a module guide template in new module guides, which explains how changes have been made as a result of evaluations from previous years, and explanations at returners’ sessions. Library returners’ sessions also explain changes made to Library services as a result of feedback. Since their implementation in 2014, School representatives have been invited to attend leadership meetings and disseminate information from these meetings to the student body. More information about these strategies can be found in question 26.

The Vice-Chancellor and relevant staff also have regular Keep In Touch meetings with the SU full-time officers and the Chief Executive. The aim of these is to gather feedback from the student body and inform the SU of any changes being made by the University with an opportunity for discussion. The Deputy Vice-Chancellor is making significant efforts to liaise regularly with School representatives to gather feedback and monitor large-scale changes.

Information is disseminated to staff via the various committee structures the University has in place; from the cascade of Exec down and outwards. There are also Vice-Chancellor roadshows and monthly newsletters.

The SU feels the University is making efforts to ensure there are formal processes through which students are made aware of any changes. We feel that the SU has a strong relationship with the Vice-Chancellor, and is able to promote the student voice at this level. However, we feel that the University could work with the SU to strengthen and further expand the representation system, which would lead to improved (and student-led) dissemination of information and improved closure of the feedback loop.

27 [S012] IQA Arrangements for Student Engagement

16 | P a g e

Section 3: How effectively the University sets and maintains the threshold standards of its academic awards

As expressed in Section 1 of the Student Submission, data was drawn from surveys undertaken by students at the University of Gloucestershire. Data was also taken from specific surveys created by the lead student representative to gather further in-depth responses. Open-text comments were gathered from surveys where available and used to express students’ views.

This section will focus primarily on students’ perceptions of how the University maintains its standards and will express the extent to which they are involved in the setting and monitoring of these standards. This section is separated into different topics; academic standards, learning opportunities, enhancement and public information. Finally, this section will review and reflect on the thematic element of ‘student employability’.

Academic Standards

1. Do students see assessments as getting more challenging as they progress through their course?

Looking through specific surveys, this is not an area of concern among the student body at the University. However, without quantitative data to address this specific question, the answer to this question of the submission is drawn solely from free-text comments.

Since 2010, the University has risen in the area of ‘assessment and feedback’ within the National Student Survey and is now the highest it has ever been; scoring 71.9% in 2014. However, there were some fluctuations in this result. In the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey, the University has also seen an increase of 16% in the area of assessment and feedback since 2010. The Students’ Union (SU) Quality Standards Survey suggests that students feel assessments are getting more challenging as the years progress.

Free-text comments surveys displayed mostly positives, which suggest students feel assessments are becoming more challenging.

“Clear progression through the years of study along with an increased opportunity to use equipment in final year.”

“Practical aspects of the course followed theory to allow hands-on learning approach - course progressed well over three years, keeping it challenging and interesting. Staff are extremely helpful at all times.”

“The assignments are challenging which is what you need.”

“Mix of types of assessments increases skills and confidence.”

17 | P a g e

The SU feels that now the student representation scheme has a better structure, this will continue to rise each year.

2. Do students have access to external examiner reports?

Currently, external examiners’ reports are made available at Boards of Studies (BoS) committee meetings and also Faculty Boards of study committee meetings. Students attending these meetings have the external examiners’ reports made available to them; however, students who are not part of these meetings do not have accessibility. Students who have access to the external examiners’ reports are student representatives, so are either course or School representatives.

From the surveys analysed, there is no statistical evidence or any open comments from students as to whether they have access to external examiners’ reports.

The SU is unaware of any student studying at the University of Gloucestershire who has access to external examiners’ reports unless they are a student representative, and is not in a position to provide evidence of where this happens effectively or not. Research with the School representatives demonstrated that those who are not student representatives do not have an interest in accessing external examiners’ reports.

3. Do students feel that their assessments are appropriate?

The University ensures students undertake different forms of assessment (e.g. written assignments, group work, presentations etc.), which it believes are appropriate to the course being studied. As there is no statistical evidence in any of the national surveys undertaken to suggest whether students feel their assessments are appropriate, the SU has taken their view on this from open-text comments within the National Student Survey. The open text comments from the 2014 National Student Survey suggest that students have mixed views on whether their assessments are appropriate.

Positives:

“The course structure and dynamics are very good as it combines both practical and theoretical activities, the assessment process are also very efficient as student do not only have to focus on exams but also assignments, projects and presentations with give students more hands-on skills.”

“I feel that the different mediums for assessment will also be applicable to the future workplace presentations for instance.”

Negatives:

“Not enough practical assessments (1 in 2 years).”

18 | P a g e

“Timetables are incredibly disorganised and a sometimes I disagreed with methods of 'marking' our own peers in the form of 'peer assessments' which I find completely pointless and really lazy to be honest as well as horribly twofaced towards my fellow classmates.”

“The thing I would most like to change is the way the course is assessed. I think that it is irrelevant as a teacher to be able to write assignments. I think it would be much more valuable to be assessed in a variety of other ways such as presentations, planning, teaching and assessment of children. If there is a need to write assignments then they should be pass or fail and the teaching element of the course should bear a greater weight on the course.”

Analyses of comments from the PTES show that, in 2010, students were dissatisfied with the range and diversity of assessments. However, a significant lack of comments in the 2014 PTES on this subject indicates that this is no longer an area of concern for postgraduate taught students.

The SU feels this indicates that students are happy with the range of assessment types offered by their courses, and that in many areas they understand and appreciate that the type of assessment offered will reflect activities that are relevant to the workplace in the future.

Students want variety but do not like group work; the University should come up with ways to minimise the impact of the group work mark; for example, a student’s mark can drop due to groups being awarded the same mark (maybe have individual marking).

4. Do students feel their feedback is timely and helpful?

The National Student Survey (2014) shows that scores in the area of assessment and feedback have increased since 2010; leading to a score of 71.9% in 2014. Looking at the National Student Survey as a whole, 71.9% is the lowest scoring area, highlighting that assessment and feedback is the area with which students are most dissatisfied. In relation to the sector as a whole, this is always the lowest scoring area on the National Student Survey.

Looking further into the quantitative data from the survey questions 7, 8, 9 (question numbers on the National Student Survey relating to feedback) shows that students are least satisfied with all three of these questions out of the entire survey:

• National Student Survey Q7: Feedback on my work has been prompt – 68% • National Student Survey Q8: I have received detailed comments on my work – 76% • National Student Survey Q9: Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did

not understand – 66%.

Whilst it appears that the majority of final-year students’ views are balanced with positive and negative comments, there is also a portion of open comments across surveys analysed, suggesting students are not satisfied with feedback.

“Assessment feedback is at times inconsistent to criteria grid and not as transparent as it could be.”

19 | P a g e

“Feedback on assessments has not always been clear to be able to improve on specific areas for the next time, and the marks given for assessments are not always fair or match up to the feedback provided.”

“I feel that the feedback that is given for work is very limited and it is extremely difficult to get lecturers to meet with you to discuss feedback readily.”

“Some feedback was hard to understand due to unreadable handwriting and so if feedback were typed up it would make it clearer.”

“Cannot even read the lecturers' writing on the feedback (Literally impossible to read). They should type it up.”

“Feedback poor/vague/could not read some handwriting.”

“The handwriting of some of the lecturers was appalling making it impossible to read, and needing a meeting to clarify the feedback. This should be done on a computer.”

“Feedback from assignments sometimes hard to read or not given within due back time.”

“Feedback handwritten by lecturers can sometimes be illegible so it is unclear. This could be improved by typed feedback.”

“Feedback is sometimes slow due to their work load.”

“The feedback has been more destructive than constructive such that at present I am considering transferring to another university.”

“Feedback expectations often not met – timing and utility – which makes it too late to modify approach.”

The comments show assessment and feedback present particular worry and distress for the student body. One of the concerns is the speed with which feedback is provided to the student body, in addition to the student’s handwritten feedback being unclear so they cannot learn and progress in writing assessments.

The SU is aware that the area of assessment and feedback is routinely the lowest scoring area on the National Student Survey. For the University, trends in this area across the years have increased, which is a positive for the University; however, as it is still the lowest scoring area in the whole survey, we see this as an overall area of concern.

As a result of low scoring of surveys filled in by the student body, the University has implemented Electronic Management of Assessments (EMA) starting this academic year (2014/15). This allows all students to submit all appropriate assignments electronically at undergraduate and postgraduate level. The University has produced online student support, with a step-by-step guide to uploading work28. There is also a PDF guide29 a student can download. The online student support also has links to principles for the electronic submission of assessment and an online video. The SU has been heavily involved in the

28 [S002] Electronic Assessment: Student Support 29 [S003] Student E-Submission Guide

20 | P a g e

implementation of this project within the University and will be helping to monitor and gather feedback from the student body on EMA. The SU also feels this will help students progress within education, as one of the major problems amongst the student body is not being able to read feedback on assignments. This is the first year EMA has been implemented, therefore no evaluation process has been taken as of yet. Once an evaluation process has been taken, it can amend any minor teething issues that have been raised (mostly technical).

The University has recognised the need for EMA, and a majority of students feel a criteria feedback method should be undertaken by staff and implemented across all courses to make feedback helpful for a student to improve. This is something the SU will be looking into and working with the University once the first evaluation process has taken place.

5. Do students understand grading criteria?

The University’s grading criteria for modules and courses are available to students through their course handbook, which are available online. The University has a framework in place for staff to adhere to when writing assessment grading criteria. This is supported by published principles and procedures providing the basis for consistency in assessments. It is clear that the University meets UK expectations in grading criteria, but it is always looking at ways it can excel in the future.

Below are some open comments from students regarding grading criteria:

“I have struggled to understand what criteria I should be achieving.”

“Occasionally I have felt that assessment criteria could have been better explained and that sometimes explanations are too 'academically jargoned' and need to be watered down a little.”

“If I could change one thing, it would be to make the marking criteria consistent across all lecturers as I have found each lecturer marks work slightly differently.”

“There was some confusion over criteria in marking where two lecturers were using different marking schemes.”

“Unclear marking criteria.”

“Marking criteria not made very clear.”

“The grading criteria were not made clear.”

“I would prefer if the assessment criteria were explained simply and straight to the point.”

“Assessment criteria not always properly outlined.”

From the surveys we have analysed, it is clear a large number of students are not happy with the clarity of grading criteria. The International Student Barometer Survey 2014 scored

21 | P a g e

78% on student satisfaction within ‘marking criteria’, making it one of the lowest scores within this survey. As previously mentioned, Section 2 of the National Student Survey, ‘Assessment and Feedback’, was the lowest scoring part of the survey; scoring 71.9%. Question 5 in particular: (the criteria used in marking have been clear in advance) within Section 2 scored the third lowest percentage score out of the whole survey (excluding the SU question).

The SU Quality Standards Survey suggests the grading criteria can be wordy but understandable. The majority of respondents within this survey feel they understand the criteria, but the respondent level for the survey was low.

Additionally, the setting of criteria for assessment is a feature of Assessment Scrutiny Panels. These panels are used as a mechanism to determine clear requirements and criteria to be included in assessment briefs.

It is clear significant work needs to be done to make assessment criteria clear to students. Students are clearly unsatisfied and want to be able to understand how to improve, obtain higher marks and be educated to their best ability. This can be undertaken at course level in course Board meetings and best practice can be shared at a faculty Board level. As previously mentioned, the SU recognises that assessment and feedback is a low-scoring area across the sector.

6. Are students aware of the University’s rules on plagiarism?

The University’s rules on plagiarism are accessible via the University website30. There is a plagiarism tutorial and guide to help students be aware of plagiarism. The online tutorial31 lasts approximately 15 minutes and goes into depth on defining plagiarism, the seriousness of plagiarism and how to avoid it.

There are also online tutorials and referencing guides to help students learn how to reference and see the appropriate referencing convention of their field of study. There are also links to a quick referencing guide for students to access and help avoid plagiarism.

At present, there is no evidence or specific questions in any survey to suggest the awareness or lack of awareness about the plagiarism rule amongst the student population.

Although the above suggests the University has the right amount of information in regards to informing students about plagiarism, it is hard for students to easily source this information. A student would have to go through four different tabs to be able to find this page, which is very difficult. Currently, there is no central pool where this information is easily accessible and, as such, could be considered an area for development.

30 [0145] Referencing and Plagiarism webpage

31 [S004] Avoiding Plagiarism Tutorial

22 | P a g e

Within the SU Quality Standards Survey, students have mixed views. One free comment expresses the rule on plagiarism “could be clearer with specific examples. Too much assumption about students’ knowledge”.

In cases where there has been a suspected breach of University regulations for assessment, a student is sent a letter via post and email. This letter/email has links to the website for students to find out information on assessment offence principles, outlining what the student may have done for the University to suspect the breach. The student is then encouraged to seek advice from the SU to help advise and represent them on this matter.

The SU is receiving more cases relating to student misconduct, which suggests students are potentially unaware of the rules on plagiarism. The SU is working in partnership with the University to run an anti-plagiarism campaign to highlight the rules of plagiarism to students. As the SU Education Officer was re-elected, it is unclear whether the increased number of cases the SU receives are due to less awareness of the rules of plagiarism, or the Education Officer and her role being more well-known and students being more aware that she is able to represent them in plagiarism cases. The SU is aware that, in some cases, it may be a deliberate attempt to deceive, but does not feel that this is true for the majority of cases.

7. How are students involved in the design of new programmes?

Students are involved in some aspects of the design of new programmes. BoS meetings entail some part of designing new programmes, where student course representatives are part of the committee. This gives students the chance to be engaged and communicate any ideas they have for students in the next academic year. In the Academic Portfolio Committee, there is also the chance for student representatives to give feedback on courses that are being passed; for example, the Fashion Design Degree.

The SU Quality Standards Survey results shows that students are aware that course and School representatives are able to aid in the design of existing programmes. The SU is working closely with School representatives in helping aid the design of existing programmes within schools and how best practice can be shared across schools to build subject communities.

The SU is unable to put forward a view from the student body about this question as there was not enough data from which to draw.

Learning Opportunities

8. Do students feel the staff are fully trained and qualified?

The University’s Postgraduate Certificate in Academic Practice (PGCAP) requires all new members of staff with fewer than three years’ experience of teaching in higher education to participate, and is also available to staff members of collaborative partner organisations.

23 | P a g e

There are no specific questions within surveys analysed that gauge whether students feel staff are fully trained and qualified. The SU Quality Opportunities Survey was created to help gather data for the Student Submission; one question asked whether students feel the staff are fully trained and qualified. Free-text comments have been extracted from all surveys to suggest that students have mixed views on the subject.

Positives:

“I think all of my lecturers are well trained and even if they are not sure about something, they seek advice from other lecturers. Lectures then get in contact with us to ensure they give answers.”

“The lecturers are very qualified and very knowledgeable!”

“I know that I am learning from experienced (not just qualified) lecturers.”

“Highly qualified and accessible teaching staff.”

Negatives:

“The use of untrained teachers really isn't a good idea for Level 6 students, which we've had to endure this semester.”

“Better qualified staff to teach the content in some areas.”

“Variable quality of tutors & guest lecturers.”

The International Student Barometer presented statistical evidence to show students were satisfied with this:

Good teachers: 93%

Expert lecturers: 88%

Academics’ English: 97%

The open comments and statistical evidence show that there is neutral feeling amongst the student body as to whether staff are trained and fully qualified.

9. Have students had the opportunity to feedback on lectures?

The University recognised the low response rate for the online end-of-module evaluations and, as a result, reviewed how the data could be collated. Students now have the opportunity to feedback on lectures in mid-module evaluations. This is an opportunity for students to give feedback on positives and negatives within the module to help impact change and help aid improvements as to how a module is taught. Mid-module evaluations also help the University enhance academic activities and give students the best academic experience possible. Mid- module evaluations also ensure that students reap the benefits of their feedback during the second half of the module.

24 | P a g e

The SU Quality Opportunities Survey suggests students know to speak to a course representative about any feedback they have on lectures to then be taken to a BoS meeting to suggest enhancement.

The SU is aware there is not a lot of evidence but are confident that the processes are undertaken and mid-module evaluations are now online.

10. Do students see evidence of a link between research undertaken by lecturers and the content of the modules?

The University suggests that full-time academic staff spend 11% of their working hours researching their specific area, which equates to around 170 hours per academic year. Academic staff undertake both scholarship research to ensure their teaching is up-to-date, as well as primary research that results in research outputs; an article published in an academic journal. Additionally, some staff co-publish with students; one member of staff has had 20 publications with students.

There is no statistical data on how students see evidence of a link between research undertaken by lecturers and the content of modules. Some free-text comments have been extracted from surveys on student views:

Positives:

“Lecturers are very passionate about the area on their research and know what they are talking about.”

“The course has provided an intellectually stimulating and interesting insight with a plethora of engaging content. The choice of modules overall is positive, with lecturers who are knowledgeable and passionate about their subject.”

“Interesting and relevant module content.”

“The modules that are provided seem to be interesting and the lecturers are interested in the topics, which makes the lectures more interesting. I think it is a good idea to highlight the research that the lecturers have done. It is interesting to hear what they did and why they did it in their study. I think this helps the student understand why they have to do particular things in their study.”

“The best thing about the course is the module content. It is very relevant to the future employment that the majority of students are aiming for.”

Negatives:

“Some modules were terrible, not well researched enough and not relevant to the course.”

“Modules don’t relate to degree subject content very out-of-date.”

From the free-text comments, we do not see this as an area of concern amongst the student population. The SU believes this is an area that is being explored and implemented with

25 | P a g e

academic staff and students, as research has a place in the new Academic Strategy. The University has created six priority areas; for example, Retail, Marketing and Management32. Postgraduate theses are also now housed in the new Open Access Research repository, ensuring they are easily available for student use.

11. Do students believe that the learning resources are adequate?

Looking at surveys across the University, it is clear that students are satisfied with learning resources. This is evident by the general improving trend of the National Student Survey scores relating to learning resources, which is increasing gradually year-on-year. Within Section 5: Learning Resources there are three questions, again all with increasingly improving trends.

Again, it is evident that students are content with the learning resources within the PRES: 2014 statistics show that students are satisfied. Also in the PTES Section: Resources and Services, results show an increasing trend by an astonishing amount, resulting in a 32% increase of student satisfaction.

Statistically, there is an increase in students thinking that learning resources are adequate; however, from the free-text comments pulled from each survey available, this is an area of definite concern within the student population.

“Resources I have access to be split over each of the campuses, which means more time trying to find them before continuing with work.”

“Not enough books or course specific library resources.”

“Library resources are awful never any books, online journals are difficult to find. And there are few places in the uni to do group work or any work for that matter.”

“The library resources could be improved with more up-to-date books and journals being brought in.”

“The library resources are somewhat limited. In particular, there are not enough computers for the amount of students and fair use procedures often were not followed by the library staff.”

“There were issues with the library resources and the online database. Instructions on how to use the online database were not clear when we started. Some students had problems with the online database and there was not enough support to help with these difficulties.”

These open comments predominately define that students want more resources in the libraries.

There are comments to suggest that students are seeing improvements within the library resources; hence, the increase in satisfaction within surveys at the University. A number of

32 [S005] Research at the University of Gloucestershire

26 | P a g e

comments suggest that knowledge and support provided by library staff is much appreciated by students, but the lack of learning resources is still to be worked upon.

“Library resources have improved since I started.”

The services and facilities provided by Library & Information Services have improved dramatically since 2010, and this is reflected in the increase in NSS scores for question 16 increasing by 17%.

This success is due to a number of innovations and improvements, including a substantial increase in the number of teaching sessions. This has enabled students to make full use of the available online scholarly subscriptions, resources and associated bibliographic tools. Space has been configured to provide more quality student (but less staff) space, including two social learning zones to encourage collaborative working, attractive group study rooms, and coffee and self-service laptop facilities. Electronic information is displayed in each library detailing the location of available computers, while opening hours have been extended substantially across all three campuses. Staff have received training to be able to answer confidently a wider range of questions as part of a strategic move from a transaction to an advisory level of service to students.

Beyond Library & Information Services, there are a number of resources available to students, including labs, studios, sports facilities etc. The SU cannot comment and surveys analysed did not draw upon this data.

We believe the University is putting a lot of time and effort into learning resources and see this as an on-going improvement. This SU is also working in partnership with the University by holding monthly meetings with Library & Information Services to discuss any improvements suggested by the student body; for example, at Campus Life Group. As mentioned previously, it is clear from the free-text comments that students are unsatisfied and want learning resources to be improved and increased.

12. How are students involved in the quality assurance processes at all levels?

There is a high level of student involvement in the quality assurance processes at all levels of the University. This is evident in the academic committee structure flowchart33, committees being blue starred where a SU representative sits on certain committees. The SU President and Education Officer sit on committees such as: Academic Board, Academic Portfolio Committee, Academic Standards and Quality Committee, Faculty Boards and Learning and Teaching Committee.

Student representatives also have the chance to be involved in the quality assurance processes at the University. Referring to the academic committee structure flow chart, committees that are red starred are where student representatives sit. These are Learning and Teaching Committee, Faculty Learning and Teaching Committee, Course Boards of Study, Research Degree Committee, Faculty Research Degree Committee. Student

33 0116 Academic/Mgnt/Council Committee Structures showing SU and Student Representation

27 | P a g e

representatives are also involved in mid-module evaluations, helping aid quality assurance within taught modules.

The SU feels heavily involved in representation within the academic structure flowchart and also within quality assurance at the University. One thing the SU has recognised is that they do not have a representative on the Collaborative Provision Committee. This is something we are working towards as we want to represent students within our collaborative partnerships where appropriate.

13. How effective is student representation? How are they supported?

The Student Representation Scheme is run by the SU, with support, resources and guidance offered by the University; in particular, by the Associate Dean of Quality and Standards. Since 2010, a number of changes have been made to the Student Representation Scheme, and this is considered an area for development within the SU.

Currently, we have 551 course representatives (between 1 and 4 per year, per course for most courses), around 70% of whom have been trained by the SU Representation & Democracy Coordinator and Education Officer. This comprehensive training includes an overview of the roles and responsibilities of the course representative (including how to be effective in their role); what happens during BoS meetings; about the Quality Assurance Agency; about the National Student Survey; and the importance of providing feedback. Following feedback from course representatives in the Internal Quality Audit (IQA)34 that course representatives did not feel rewarded for their work, course representatives are now incentivised with a t-shirt that will ensure they are more visible to their peers. They are also eligible for nomination as ‘Rep of the Year’ in the Student-Led Teaching Awards (SLTAs).

In 2014, the SU has formed a Strategic Alliance with Gloucestershire College and South Gloucestershire and Stroud (SGS) College to provide training to course representatives. This partnership formed in 2012 as a result of a corporate strategic alliance between the University and the two colleges. This initiative has led the University of Gloucestershire SU to be considered the expert in student representation in Gloucestershire. We provide online training to those who cannot attend.

During the academic year 2013/2014, the SU employed 20 ‘Head Representatives’ (2 per school35), whose aim was to provide support to the course representatives in their School and be a conduit of information between the course representatives and the Head of School. These students were paid £100 and received a free ticket to the summer ball if they attended three events during the year (e.g. Campus Life Group). The SU believes that, with more funding, we could do much more with the Head Representative role.

Consequently, in 2014, a job description and proposal was provided for the ‘School Representative’ role. The name change reflected the lack of support for the ‘managerial’ job title of ‘Head Representative’ by course representatives.

34 [S012] IQA Arrangements for Student Engagement 35 [0118] School Representative Job Description

28 | P a g e

The aim of the new School representative role was to “improve the quality of the student experience at the University of Gloucestershire by effectively engaging with Course Representatives and students” and “to develop more effective approaches to teaching, learning and the wider student experience”. A number of responsibilities were provided for the role to achieve these aims, including:

• Working with staff to enhance and develop the student experience in both academic and non-academic areas

• Gathering feedback from course representative on teaching methods and learning resources, and assisting relevant staff in responding to this feedback

• Assisting in the development and implementation of new approaches to student engagement

• Promoting the student voice in appropriate forums • Communicating key information to course representatives • Liaising with SU and School staff, particularly Heads of School.

To reflect the additional responsibility for this role, School representatives are paid an hourly wage of £7.28, and are provided with a University hoody featuring their job title to ensure students are made aware of their role. The University provided the SU with an earmarked £10,000 to undertake this venture.

In September 2014, 10 School representatives (one per School, aside from a job-share within the School of Media) were selected via an application and interview process conducted by the SU and the relevant Heads of Schools. A further one School representative was appointed in November to the Institute of Education and Public Services as it was felt that this School was too large for one representative. All School representatives were trained36 by the SU Representation and Democracy Coordinator and SU Education Officer, and relevant sessions were run by SU and University staff, including the Associate Dean of Quality and Standards (who ran a session on building subject communities); the Dean of Quality and Standards (who ran a session on the QAA) and the Director of Academic Practice (who ran a session on the Enhanced Student Year). The training session was opened by the Vice-Chancellor, who fully supports the Student Representation Scheme. The SU provided refresher training for School representatives in January, which included sessions on team building, confidence and blog writing.

The SU is also working in partnership with the University Sustainability Team to run training on Education for Sustainability (EfS) for School and course representatives, to encourage the embedding of sustainability in courses using the student voice. This arose to reflect the student demand for sustainability in the curriculum; an NUS survey suggested that 68% of students thought sustainability should be incorporated and promoted by University courses.

The SU Representation and Democracy Coordinator or SU Education Officer and relevant Head of School meet with each School representative on a fortnightly basis. The SU has worked during the first term to support School representatives to create five individual KPIs,

36 [0126] School Representative Training Programme

29 | P a g e

which help add more focus to the role. Many of these KPIs37 concentrate on the building of a School Community to help engage students.

The University is making efforts to ensure there is student representation in as many forums as possible. School representatives are invited to be full members of the School Leadership Team and Faculty Board. Feedback from School representatives suggests that they are pleased to be part of these committees so they can put forward student views; however, they feel the meetings could have been made more relevant to them. School representatives are also invited to sit on the University Learning and Teaching Committee (LTC) and Strategic Enhancement Group and other ad-hoc groups as appropriate, such as the Festivals Fortnight Working Group.

The SU feels the enhancement of the Representation Scheme has led to significantly increased engagement with student representation. Since the addition of School representatives, attendance at course Boards has risen by 26.25%, which is an overall increase from 2012/1338 to 2013/1439. School representatives have also been able to gather increased feedback from course representative forums, and they support course representatives to make changes. There will be a formal review of the impact and effectiveness of School representatives later this academic year.

For students who do not engage with their School or course representative, we feel that the new mid-module evaluations give students the opportunity to feedback on their teaching and learning. This is better than relying on National Student Survey data as it gives students the opportunity to make change whilst it is still relevant to them.

Although we feel the student representation system is improving, research into other Sus demonstrates that our system is underfunded. The SU would like to be able to afford more staff members as well as incentives for students to improve student engagement in the system.

The SU also feels the student representation system is needlessly complicated due to the number of similar courses the University runs, which instead could be module choices within a single course. Perhaps larger course sizes would help students better build subject communities.

14. Are there any case studies where the University has instigated a change in response to student views?

There are a number of ways for students to communicate their views on what changes they want to see at the University, and some have been made following students expressing their views.

Campaigns that have instigated change through the SU include ‘Feedback February’. Feedback February is a campaign that runs for a month, gathering feedback from the

37 [S013] School Representatives KPIs 38 [S036] Student Representative Attendance at Boards 2012 13 39 [S037] Student Representative Attendance at Boards 2013 14

30 | P a g e

student body about what change they want to see. Each week focuses on a different theme; for example, week 1: academic changes, week 2: welfare changes. This campaign highlights the wishes of the student body. Feedback gathered is then taken to the SU Keep in Touch meeting with the University, where we are able to highlight key themes that arise throughout all faculties and across all campuses.

‘You Said; We Did’404142 is another campaign run in conjunction with the University. This happens at course/module levels regarding what changes students want in order to enhance their learning experience. Feedback is gathered from the student body via student course representatives and feedback at course BoS committees. In addition, feedback is gathered by School representatives and taken to faculty BoS committees or directly to Heads of School as they have fortnightly one-to-one meetings with School representatives.

Campus Life is a committee for gathering feedback from students as to what change they want to see on campus. Recently, this has been taken on by the SU to help more students engage with this committee. This committee has representatives from ICT, Library & Information Services, Estates, and Student Services. Feedback is taken on board by the relevant University staff members to make positive change for the student population.

The previously-mentioned Campus Life meetings used to feed into the Student Life Committee. It was an open forum for students and had the appropriate staff members in attendance to discuss matters on a whole University scale, rather than at campus level. In previous years, the Student Life Committee started to become a bit repetitive and became a duplication of the Campus Life groups. This year, the Student Life Committee is going to be rebranded as the “Student Conversation”, where a topic of discussion will be put forward to both students and staff, with the objective of achieving targets via deliberating views and opinions from all members. This meeting will occur once a year to ensure there is a clear vision and structure. The primary consultation will be based around ‘student communication’ and how it can be changed for the better to enhance the student experience at the University of Gloucestershire.

Recently, the SU launched its Feedback website43 to help instigate change within the University. Each elected SU full-time officer has responsibility for one campus and specific areas. When feedback is submitted, it is filtered automatically to the full-time officer responsible for the action, who will then start the process of making change.

There has been a significant amount of work to produce an enhanced year for the student body. This is to give students the opportunity to enhance their employability skills. The enhanced year arose from a review that was prompted initially by student feedback regarding the value for money of the existing academic year; particularly in relation to accommodation costs. Students have made the SU very aware that communications

40 [0109] You Said We Did Park

41 [0110] You Said We Did Oxstalls

42 [0111] You Said We Did Francis Close Hall

43 [S006] Students’ Union Feedback Website

31 | P a g e

regarding the enhanced year were not sufficient and, as a result, would have preferred to have stayed with the old term structure and had accommodation fees reduced; thereby saving students a lot of money.

Student views have instigated the change to the new system for the EMA. These views were due to the amount of negative feedback on assessments within the National Student Surveys. Although within the National Student Survey, Assessment and Feedback remains the lowest scoring area. The EMA has come into place this academic year (2014/15), so the University has instigated this change to help students submit assessments and read feedback. As mentioned previously, this is the first year of EMA; therefore, it needs to be evaluated for student feedback.

The University has responded to specific suggestions made by the SU. Examples of this include; changing the name Academic Review Tutors (ARTs) to Personal Tutors, the increase in University grant to support initiatives the SU wanted to take, helping meet the costs of hiring sports facilities and combining the SLTAs with the Staff Awards.

The SU recognises it is challenging to gather feedback from students to instigate change. The most engaged students are the course and School representatives. Without the Representation Scheme run by the SU, it would be very hard to gather feedback from the student body.

15. How does the University use evidence, such as the National Student Survey scores, to enhance its provision?

The University uses surveys to enhance its provision by having a committee called the Student Survey KIS Steering Group. Within this committee, statistical data is discussed. The statistical data and free-text comments are all broken down and sorted by Faculty and School. This helps guide the work of each Faculty and School on how its provision can be enhanced, right down to a specific course. Action plans are created from the latest set of survey results and aim to improve provision. Two SU representatives are part of the Student Survey KIS Steering Group, so views of the study body can be implemented. Analysed data is also shared with particular committees at the University, so there is acknowledgment across the University.

The SU incorporates the University scores into the student representative training at the start of the year. The SU feels it is important to raise this at training so student course representatives can be empowered to help the University enhance its provision at course level.

One future plan of the SU is for School representatives to analyse data within their School, look at how they can improve weak areas and see where best practice can be shared in each School.

32 | P a g e

16. How do students find out about complaints and appeals procedures?

Students are able to find out about the complaints procedures on the University website44. As mentioned in question 28 of the Student Submission, the website is not very accessible and user-friendly. If a student is able to find the webpage about complaints and appeals procedure, the information on the webpage is student friendly. The information is bullet pointed, making it easy for students to read and there is also a complaints and appeals flowchart signalling the processes for each.

Students can find information regarding the appeals process in their course handbooks. Complaints procedures are also flagged in the Student Charter (distributed in hard copy to all prior to arrival, and available on the website) and also through Student Helpzones and Personal Tutors.

The Academic Appeals Procedure is lengthy but necessary as it contains all the information needed for a student regarding an appeal; moreover, the language used is student-friendly and easy to understand. The University has also created a flowchart45 explaining the procedure for a student who wishes to appeal. Again, this is user-friendly for a student and easy to understand.

The Student Complaints Procedure is also lengthy but necessary; it contains all relevant information needed for a student to make a complaint to the University. The information given to a student for the procedure46, and the language used is easily comprehended. A flowchart47 has been created to help students to understand the procedure.

The SU Quality Opportunities Survey asked this specific question to collate data from students. The data was inconclusive as the response from students was they had not been through the process; therefore, they have not needed to find out about the complaints and appeals procedure.

17. How satisfied are students with the outcome and timescales of the above procedures?

Students have 10 working days to submit notice of an intention to appeal, and a further 10 working days to submit the full appeal and documentation. The Academic Appeals Group meets as soon as possible to consider an appeal and an outcome is provided within five working days of that meeting. Students have the right to continue to a formal review stage and attend a hearing. Again, an Academic Appeals Committee will meet at the earliest opportunity but a number of factors can influence this; including student and staff availability, illness etc. The whole formal process is normally completed well within the recommended timescale outlined in the OIAHE Good Practice Framework of 90 calendar days.

44 [0159] Academic Appeals and Student Complaints webpage

45 [S007] Academic Appeals procedure flowchart

46 [S008] Student Complaints Procedure 47 [S009] Student Complaints Flowchart

33 | P a g e

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, in the SU Quality Standards Survey, the results were inconclusive due to students not having gone through the procedures.

Within the flowcharts for an appeal or complaint, there is a timeframe for each stage, but they are not specific; for example, ‘timeframe for completion, normally within one calendar month’. The SU’s view is that there should be an unambiguous schedule to which both parties have a duty to adhere, which is equal in its appointment of timescales. The timescale to make a decision on an appeal can be problematic for a student; if an appeal was from a resit exam board, a student cannot enrol and gain access to their student finance. This means that these students have a significant disadvantage in comparison to other students. The SU is looking into exploring timescales imposed by other universities, and these should be made much clearer to students.

18. How is employability embedded in the curriculum for students?

The University ensures employability is embedded into every course in some way; however, it is different for every course. It is left up to each School to decide how they embed employability into their courses but, broadly, each course will have a placement, an internship programme or a module about employability if it is a less vocational course. The University created a Learning and Teaching Strategy (2011-2015), which includes a section on learning for life, and employment is one of its priorities.

Since the creation of the Learning and Teaching Strategy, the University has begun to embed employability into the curriculum more. The Careers Team now have more involvement in the University and speak in many lectures each year about employability.

Many of the courses at the University work towards gaining a professional qualification. As a result, there is a heavy focus on enhancing students’ employability in specific areas. In many areas, this is achieved through placements (of varying lengths). Data from the National Student Survey and the SU survey demonstrated that this is one of the things students value most about their courses.

“Going on an industrial placement was the best decision I ever made. The placements team were very helpful with this.”

“The placement year has really helped me with my confidence in a work place, as I have had no previous experience.”

“The best thing was placement year.”

“Compulsory placement year. I believed that this helped developed my understanding and skills needed within the industry as the experience was hands-on.”

The University also has a strong DegreePlus Team, and encourages students to think about employability through the DegreePlus award. The SU also encourages students to undertake the Degreeplus award as a result of the various activities in which they may participate through the SU; for example, being a student representative. The SU also

34 | P a g e

promotes employability to students through ‘Bank it!’ This is an online hub where students can log their volunteering hours48.

The SU feels that the University is good at embedding employability into the curriculum through various mechanisms, and that it is a large area of focus for the University. The success of this is shown through the DHLE statistics 2012/13, highlighting that 81-96% (depending on faculty) of students are employed or undertaking further study within six months of leaving University. The SU believes that students understand and appreciate the importance of employability within the curriculum, and enjoy the opportunities provided by the University. Whilst the University has always been good at embedding employability into the curriculum, the Enhanced Student Year is the framework for incorporating more employability opportunities.

19. How satisfied are students with any careers service provided?

The University Careers Service provides individual guidance to students to support them in their transition from University to the world of work. It offers telephone interviews and an ‘advice by email’ service, which is popular with students. The Careers Service also offers a careers education programme to all academic departments, whereby careers staff are able to input into lecture programmes.

There are many ways in which students find out about the careers service. Statistics in the Career Meeting Feedback Report 201449 showed that the main method is through careers publicity; including Careers Centre messages posted on the University website and notices in the library. Other key ways students find out about the Careers Service include careers consultants visiting subject lectures, referral by a friend or lecturer, or the service being recommended by a member of Student Services.

The Careers Service has always been very popular with students at the University of Gloucestershire. Since 2010, the number of individual students meeting with careers consultants has fluctuated between 516 and 550 students in each academic year. Since 2010, there has been an increase from 435 to 619 students who have made use of the advice by email service. Data in the Careers Service Annual Statistical Report (2013-201450 showed that the advice by email service receives CV-related queries and requests for information about the employability award. There has also been an increase in the number of careers sessions in academic programmes51; from 72 in 2009/10 to 155 in 2012/13.

The Careers Service gathers information on how students find the service via an online feedback form sent to all students who have used the service. The results of the 2014 survey revealed that 97% of students agreed that booking an appointment was easy; 94% of students found the meeting helpful and informative; 75% of students felt that a 30-minute meeting with a careers consultant was long enough; and 87% left the meeting feeling confident of what to do to further their career planning. 48 [S032] SU Bank It #GLOSLEGEND 49 [S029] Career Meeting Feedback 2014 50 [S030] Career Meetings Statistical Report 201314 51 [S031] Career Sessions into Academic Programmes

35 | P a g e

This is backed up by positive free-text comments in the National Student Survey:

“A career specialist comes in once a year (like most courses) to speak to us about what we could do in the future and give us advice relating to specific career choices, which is very helpful.”

“Careers team and placement should be kept how they are as they are excellent!”

“The University offers a lot of support compared to other universities in careers and making the most of your degree.”

The SU agrees that there is a great deal of evidence to reflect student satisfaction with the University Careers Service. We hope that the Careers Service will go from strength to strength with the inclusion of employability within the academic strategy.

The SU also works to support the employability and careers of students through the SU Jobshop, which helps students find part-time jobs alongside their studies and SU volunteering. This provides students with the soft skills sought by employers. The SU Employability Committee ensures all careers and employability-related activities are student-led, and look to make enhancements in these areas.

20. How satisfied are disabled students?

The Student Services Department has staff that are able to support disabled students with their University learning experience. Student feedback comments were collated in May 2014 to discover student satisfaction levels and to see how the University can improve their service to students. The feedback provided reveals that students are very satisfied with the learning support workers52.

Although students are satisfied with learning support workers, open-text comments pulled from surveys analysed suggest a mixed view of students’ experiences of the University.

Positives:

“The disabled student help is very good.”

“I'm an older, disabled mother as well as a student and they understand the problems I am facing, they handle me very well.”

Negatives:

“I've had no support from the disabled student allowance, I've applied numerous times and just been told my application has been misplaced or not received.”

“The University’s disabilities support is not good. The only support I have received is from the lecturers on the creative writing course.”

52 [S025] Student feedback collation of comments May 2014 Learning Support Workers

36 | P a g e

The SU has two newly-elected part-time Disabled Student Officers to sit on the SU Executive Committee and represent the views of disabled students when the SU is creating policies. The Disabled Student Officers also sit on a number of other SU Committees (e.g. the Education Committee), so can offer their perspective of what disabled students would like to enhance their learning. The SU feels the majority of students are satisfied with Student Services and do not see this as an area of concern.

21. How satisfied are international students?

The University has its own International Department to help students settle into University life when studying at the University of Gloucestershire. The International Student Barometer results show our International Student Advisor Team received 94% satisfaction and are ranked 3rd in the country. The Advisory Team members both have NVQ level 3 qualifications in Advice and Guidance to help students’ satisfaction levels.

The SU has become more involved with international students in the past year, as we now run weekend SU trips to tourist destinations around the UK; for example, Bath and Oxford. During International Welcome Week, the SU helps students settle into the area by taking them on an organised night out to acquaint them with the nightlife in Cheltenham. The SU also has a part-time International Officer to represent the student voice; we also have an International Society.

The International Student Barometer was analysed from Autumn 2012 to Summer 2014. It is clear that international student satisfaction levels increased during this period. In conclusion, a large proportion of international students were satisfied with their University of Gloucestershire student experience.

22. How satisfied are students who undertake work placements?

Some courses are professional and feature workplace learning. Others have placements that are compulsory and students undertake these to gain experience in the field of work in which they wish to work after completing their studies. Some courses have an optional placement module if students wish to gain experience in the workplace.

The data that was available to analyse the views of students who undertook work placements could be pulled only from open-text comments as there is not a specific question to receive statistical data. Students are generally satisfied in terms of placements, as can be seen in the following comments:

“Going on an industrial placement was the best decision I ever made. The placements team were very helpful with this.”

“The assistance with finding work placements has also been really good with lecturers consistently linking students to opportunities that we may otherwise not be offered. Overall, it's been really good!”

37 | P a g e

“The placement year has really helped me with my confidence in a work place, as I have had no previous experience.”

“Year's placement in industry was the most valuable and best part of the entire course. Being able to put everything we had learnt into practice and gain much needed, hands-on experience has been vital.”

“Placement year is a positive and should be kept compulsory.”

“The placement year was by far the most beneficial experience to my career in Events Management. Running an event in Year 2 was also helpful as part of the course.”

It is important to acknowledge comments drawn from students. Open-text comments suggest students find placement one of the most valuable experiences whilst at University. The University should also be given credit for the advice and support given to students when undertaking work placements.

23. Does your University have a student charter that sets out expectations? Are students aware of this?

The University has a Student Charter53 that outlines the expectations every student can have of the University and what the University expects of its students. It acts as a signpost to helpful information both internally and externally; for example, the Student Loans Company. It outlines the six key values of the University: nurture, creativity, sustainability, service, respect and trust. A copy of the Charter is given to every student on arrival as part of the welcome pack.

The SU feels that the required expectations from both the University and its students, as set out in the Student Charter, help to decrease the culture of consumerism amongst the student body, and bring about the partnership approach required for successful student engagement.

The Student Charter is appealing to students and is easily accessible on the University and SU website. A focus group with 11 student representatives showed that most students have heard of the Charter, but only one had actually seen it. On looking at the Charter, students found it appealing and easy to read and understand. Data from the SU Quality Opportunities Survey backs this up, showing that only five respondents have actually seen it.

The SU can reasonably conclude that students feel the Charter is appealing and accessible; however, more could be done to promote the Charter to students. The SU finds the Student Charter to be a useful document when assisting with a student’s case during an appeal or complaint.

53 [S033] Student Charter 2014

38 | P a g e

Enhancement

24. How does the University listen to the student voice when considering to enhancement?

The University listens to the student voice in many different ways. Analysing surveys created for the student population to complete helps the University listen to the student voice and enhance students’ learning and experience. The SU has monthly Keep in Touch meetings with the Vice-Chancellor and some members of the University Exec. This is a great way to discuss emerging issues that the students are facing and the University is able to listen to the full-time officers when considering any enhancement.

At course level, course representatives are able to voice their opinions regarding any enhancement action courses are considering; thereby reiterating this at School level with School representatives, who are able to voice their opinions to Heads of School on any enhancement the University is considering.

When the SU produced surveys on enhancement, the following interesting comment was made by a student:

“Course reps are used to liaise between students and staff but at times responses to feedback are not sent back to students so they are not always aware of changes made. However, on assessment briefs it states what feedback was given from the previous year and what changes they have made.”

This shows that course representatives are able to be the student voice, but communication issues lie in students being aware of what enhancements have been made. Again, the University can do more to listen to those students who aren’t involved in the Student Representation Scheme, through online and face-face mechanisms.

Other examples of enhancement made by the University are the EMA and the Enhanced Academic year, which began in the academic year 2014/15.

The SU would like to acknowledge and congratulate the University’s Vice-Chancellor, Stephen Marston, for supporting the new initiative of the School representatives to help enhance the student voice.

25. How are students made aware of any changes or improvements to their educational experience?

This year, the University has made a number of significant changes to the student experience, including the introduction of EAM and the Enhanced Student Year. The University makes use of a number of mechanisms to inform students of changes or improvements to their education experience. These include the use of student news on the

39 | P a g e

University infonet; the Marketing Team’s use of social media, including Facebook and Twitter, and emails; and it being in course handbooks.

As the EMA and Enhanced Student Year were both new changes in 2014/15, the introduction of the two together has meant that final-year students are finding coping with the changes particularly difficult as they have to become accustomed to a number of new things. Students particularly didn’t understand the Enhanced Student Year and felt the concept hadn’t been communicated to them especially well. This has led to a number of students viewing the enhanced student weeks more as ‘weeks off’. For first-year students, the enhanced student year appears to be more popular as they view it as the norm. The SU believes this is the first year of an Enhanced Student Year and recognises that the University will use the feedback from students to make changes to the year. We recognise that it may take a few years for a whole cycle of students to go through the University, in order for the Enhanced Student Year to be considered the norm by all students.

As mentioned previously, the changes made were a result of student feedback. EMA was created to combat the complaints of students about the poor handwriting on assignment feedback forms, while the Enhanced Student Year was formed as a result of student dissatisfaction with paying for housing for a full year when the teaching period was much shorter. We feel the University could do more to inform students of the reasons behind the changes being made, as this may make them happier and feel as though the changes are being made in response to their feedback.

Unfortunately, the introduction of the Enhanced Student Year was announced quite late. It addition to it being a new concept, students felt it was badly organised as there were a number of difficulties. Some comments made by students during a focus group include:

“One of the common things I heard in my School was that people weren't told about the enrichment activities until too late, which resulted in a very low attendance. They felt the activities should be printed in the module guide timetable so that students aren't left thinking it's simply a week off.”

“The prices varied, I believe there was one perhaps two activities that were free, two that were under £100 - with some being upwards of £500+. However the generally opinion was it was too costly.”54

The University is aware of students’ opinions of the Enhanced Student Year, and is working to gather feedback from students so that improvements can be made. The SU is satisfied that the University is working with student representatives to achieve this, but the University could do more to reach out to the entire student body. Students feel that timetabling changes within a student’s course or teaching could have been communicated more effectively, as it places a strain on a student’s time commitments for extra-curricular activities or working life.

At course level, students are also made aware of changes or improvements via their course representatives, who attend the BoS meetings and are informed of any changes that are go

54 [S035] Enhanced Student Year Focus Group comments

40 | P a g e

ing to be made (often as a result of the feedback provided by the representatives). The SU survey demonstrated that students are often more aware of smaller changes; for example, about a student’s course. At School level, the implementation of School representatives means that information from the School is disseminated to course representatives and students.

The SU believes that change is often miscommunicated as academic staff do not always promote the same message as the University leadership. This has been a particular issue in the case of the Enhanced Student Year.

26. Are students aware of an ethos of continual improvement in the University?

A focus group with students indicated that final-year students feel that improvements have been made to the University during their years of study. Some examples of comments made by students include:

“I feel that improvements have been made while I’ve been here.”

“Law has made improvements; for example, they’ve given us a mooting room.”

“I feel that the marketing at the University has improved whilst I have been here.”

The University is trying to make students more aware of improvements that have been made by supporting the SU to run its ‘You Said; We Did’ campaign.

Some students made slightly more negative comments as they felt that the University focuses more on improving things for prospective students rather than making things work for those already studying at the University.

One way in which students are made aware of the ethos of continual improvement is through the Representation Scheme. Students are able to work as partners in improving their education by informing course representatives of any changes they would like to see. Course representatives are then able to work with University staff to implement these changes.

Examples of improvements that have been made as a result of student feedback include:

“With the feedback that I gave to the head of subject, they agreed to look at changing the structure of assignments in future to prevent the confusion that having two very similar assignments in a short space of time had caused.”

“Marketing students weren't happy with the amount of business focused modules in their first year and first semester. After a few weeks consultation a move was made to spread out the business modules and start the marketing modules earlier. In addition a business module was swapped for a marketing module.”

The addition of School representatives has meant that increased amounts of feedback and bigger changes that improve the student experience have been made. The SU feels that

41 | P a g e

increasing further the Representation Scheme will facilitate more and more student-led improvements.

Students recognise that the University has a great ethos about gathering feedback from students on changes that have been, or are going to be, made. This demonstrates to students that they are being listened to and that the University is trying to improve. However, students expressed mixed views about whether things actually change. The SU feels that the University should ensure students are informed of the reasons a change suggested by a student cannot be made in situations where it is impossible.

The University should also work to ensure changes are made for current students, rather than purely for prospective students. Current University investment is geared towards developing new infrastructures for new courses, rather than investing in teaching, learning and social space for current students. Often, the new developments have a negative effect on the current infrastructure.

Public Information

27. How user-friendly and up to date is the website/information provided to students?

The University website is not user-friendly for students. The information on the website is clear and regarded as a necessity, but it is very hard to navigate to particular pages. Comments pulled from surveys analysed suggest students do not find the website user-friendly and consider it outdated.

“Could be improved; for example, simpler, more organised links and fewer spelling mistakes.”

“Not really. It’s a very old layout and quite bad to use.”

At present, the University acknowledges the website is hard to navigate and not user-friendly. It is investing in improvements to the external website. The website will be course-driven and will ensure all information relevant to a student’s course will be easily accessible. It is important to mention that the infonet area of the website, which houses information about appeals etc., is password-protected.

The SU recognises that the University website is not user-friendly, so we created a button on our SU website to make it easier for students to access their University email. Looking through the data we have, the University email button is the most clicked on our website. Adverts are viewed the same amount of times, but the University email button was the most clicked on of them all. This demonstrates that the University website is not user-friendly. The SU acknowledges that improvements are taking place to create a user-friendly University website.

The SU Quality Enhancement Survey asked the direct question: Do you feel the information on the University website is accurate? As mentioned in the Background to the University section, there were 23 respondents to this survey; thus representing an inconclusive view of

42 | P a g e

the student body. There was an interesting response from a student in regards to the website being user-friendly and up to date:

“Probably only about 5% of it.”

The accuracy of information on the University website can often be incorrect, which causes problems for students. The SU sees this as a communication problem between internal departments that should be addressed. An example of this would be publications from the University produced for the student body. Information in these publications are incorrect. The SU views this as a problem for students. The SU is aware that changes are being made to renovate the website; this will be monitored by the SU in due course.

28. What language support is provided to international students?

In-class language support provided to students who take up courses that include it; that is, the undergraduate studies routes in the Business School. These include In-sessional Language modules for students. The Joint Venture with INTO allows students to do Pre-sessional and Foundation-level qualifications before starting a degree with us (these aren’t taken at the same time as starting an undergraduate or postgraduate degree). Internally, the University has the Student Achievement Team who can help with language support55.

The International Student Barometer was analysed from Autumn 2012 to Summer 2014. It is clear that international students are satisfied with the language support they receive. In summer 2009, the satisfaction level was 71.4%, during summer 2014 this increased to 92%; thereby demonstrating that students are satisfied with the language support received.

55 [S010] Language Support

43 | P a g e

Theme - Employability

Employability and the Students’ Union

The SU provides opportunities that position students as active partners in shaping their experience at University, while fitting with our ethos of facilitating and championing student success.

The skills agenda for student and graduate employment has broadened significantly over the past few years to include opportunities from volunteering, social entrepreneurship, sports, societies, committees and part-time work. While we have our core employability service in the jobshop and jobshop temps, we also work to ensure all opportunities offered have a clear pathway to skills development and understanding. We aim to embrace this change and move to a skills recognition/development service that is available through all SU engagement and is in line with our 2014/15 SU Action Plan56.

We recognise that it is important to work in partnership with the University, especially with the Degreeplus Team and we have done this by working in partnership to run activities during Degreeplus Week. In addition, we have worked with them to effectively develop and run services and opportunities that enhance student employability within the University. We have successfully used our position as a member-led organisation whose strategy is shaped and developed by our students, to develop our work and raise change within the University community.

As mentioned in the SU Strategy, your SU promises to help with your employability. We do this with all the information above. In the SU Action Plan 2014/15, we have created an SU Employability Committee. This is student-led, Chaired by the part-time Employability Officer and works towards our strategy. Within the SU Action Plan 2014/15, there are five KPIs:

• Develop recognition for students who get involved with the SU

• Double the number of students employed by the SU

• Help students start their own business

• Promote the Higher Education Achievement Report and Degreeplus award

• Introduce a training and award programme for students involved in SU activity.

The committee discusses ways in which we can help students improve their employability skills. Also, as the committee is student-led, it helps shape the wishes of the current student body. The committee minutes are published to the student body on our SU website57. This is so the minutes can be accessed by all students.

The SU, in partnership with The Growth Hub, runs a programme called VENTURE into Enterprise. VENTURE provides a series of workshops, either stand alone or embedded into

56 [S026] SU ActionPlan 1415 57 [S027] SU Employability Minutes Forum

44 | P a g e

the various modules, to encourage and develop entrepreneurial activities. VENTURE covers topics on:

• The Mindset – How to think like an Entrepreneur • The Business Toolkit – All you need to know to set up your own business • Accountancy • Finance and Funding for start-up businesses • Marketing • Social Media • Social Enterprise • Branding • Addressing IP • Promoting yourself and your business.

We work very closely with local businesses that support the VENTURE programme through delivering workshops and sponsorship of prize funds to help get the start-up business ideas up and running. Our local business support also extends to mentoring and providing guidance on how to write a business plan. members of the University of Gloucestershire’s Gloucestershire Enterprise Society also help promote and research the workshops that we provide to our students.

National Landscape

More students now work to fund their studies - with the number of working students now standing at 59%.

Nearly half of students – 45% – have a part-time job, including a third of students working part-time during term.

In addition, 13% manage to hold down full-time jobs, either during term, over holidays or both.

The number of working students has risen two percentage points on last year. Most students are working, at least in part, because of money concerns; 58% want to spend the money on socialising; 55% on food and household bills; 38% say they're doing it to save for the future; and 35% are trying to avoid getting into debt.

But many also do it to boost their employment prospects after University. More than half – 53% – cite this as a motivating factor.

Similarly, 41% of those who take part in extracurricular activities do so to boost their employment prospects. This is despite the fact that just 13% say they aren't confident about finding a job after graduating.

Students' dependence on loans has also risen, with 67% saying their student loan is one of their main sources of income, compared with 60% last year.

Just over half – 52% – depend on their parents to help them financially through University.

45 | P a g e

Endsleigh's 2014 Student Survey, which was carried out by NUS Services Research Department58.

The SU runs a number of initiatives that connect sustainability with employability and enterprise. This includes the introduction of the Greener Gloucestershire programme, which allows students to get hands-on experience of sustainability; for example, by starting up their own social enterprises. It also reaches out into the community (e.g. through BIGGY (The Big Green Gap Year)), which allows students to undertake a sustainable gap year within sustainable businesses. These initiatives were created in response to student demand for skills in sustainability59.

58 [S038] Endsleigh's 2014 Student Survey 59 [S034] NUS HEA Education for Sustainable Development

46 | P a g e

Conclusion

Recommendations from the Student Submission 2010

To conclude the Student Submission, I will review and discuss the recommendations taken from the University of Gloucestershire’s Student Submission in 2010. Then, I will look at the recommendations drawn from the perception of students and data within the University of Gloucestershire’s Student Submission 2014/15.

The feedback received represents a variety of student perceptions across the University and highlights the variation in student perception. Given more time and resources, this could be analysed more closely against other data, plus a greater volume of the minority groups could be identified and canvassed. However, it is deemed that the level of representation is sufficient to determine some key recommendations and illustrations of good practice.

At the end of each question asked within the University of Gloucestershire’s Student Submission, it concludes with the thoughts of the student body and whether it is an area of success or concern. It is also important to recognise that this submission is a snapshot and portrays student perceptions at a particular point in time.

Key areas of concern expressed through student feedback from the student submission 2010 were:

• Reduced provision of resources in learning centres • Poor level of communication from the University regarding large-scale changes • Difficulty understanding feedback and utilising it to enhance success.

Since these concerns were expressed in 2010, various changes have been made within the University in response to student feedback.

Reduced provision of resources in the learning centres

Written in question 11 of the Student Submission, it is clear that the University has heard the voice of the student body and has increased provision in the learning centres in a number of ways. These are:

• Increase in the number of teaching sessions, enabling students to have full access to available online scholarly subscriptions

• Increase in space, encouraging group work • Electronic information being displayed in each library • Extended opening hours extended.

Poor level of communication from the University regarding large-scale changes

Although the University and the Students’ Union (SU) have monthly Keep In Touch meetings to discuss any changes implemented across the University, the SU feels there is still room

47 | P a g e

for improvement with the communication to students about this type of information. An example of this is the Enhanced Student Year that came into place 2014/15. The views of the student body feel the arrangements for this were not voiced by the students. The ambiguity and disorganisation of the Enhanced Student Year has yielded negative views from the student body and students are not satisfied with changes made. In addition, students are dissatisfied that communication did not take place before the changes occurred.

While a number of initiatives have come into place in terms of how communication levels can be improved, the SU feels that these communication levels have improved for small-scale changes but not for large-scale changes. This will be expressed further in the Recommendations section of the document.

Difficulty understanding feedback and utilising it to enhance success

As written in question 4 of the Student Submission, the University has been working on Electronic Management of Assessment. This is to enhance the feedback of an assignment and help a student achieve success. As students were having difficulty in understanding written comments, feedback from assignments is now typed online. This makes it easier for a student not only to read but also access feedback.

Recommendations for the Student Submission 2015

Recommendations from the University of Gloucestershire SU drawn from student views at the University of Gloucestershire are as follows:

• Improved support for the Student Representative Scheme • Communication between the University, academics and the student body • Direction in collaborative partners • Space for students.

Improved support for the student representative scheme

Over the last two years, the SU Representation Scheme has gone from strength to strength. Following the introduction of the SU Representation and Democracy Co-ordinator role in 2011, the SU has had the capacity to expand the Student Representation Scheme. The Scheme has also been strengthened through the training of student representatives, the new School Representative Scheme and on-going student support throughout the year.

With the introduction to the School representative role in 2014, the SU has been able to work much more closely with the University on aspects of representation and improving the student voice. The SU feels that with continued support from the University, we will be able to expand further the Representation Scheme, by creating more opportunities for student

48 | P a g e

voices to be heard and for them to become involved in the quality assurance processes at the University.

To improve the Representation Scheme, the SU would like to employ a dedicated Course Representation Coordinator to oversee all aspects of the Course Representative Scheme, including initial and on-going training and workshops for all student representatives. We would also like to expand the Scheme by facilitating some of the ventures adopted by other SuUs; for example, Speak Week at Bournemouth SU.

As a result of the Enhanced Student Year more resources and workloads have been placed onto the Student Representation Scheme. This has left the SU low on funds to run the scheme and impacted heavily on the workload of the current Representation and Democracy Coordinator.

Communication between the University, academics and the student body

As mentioned previously in the Recommendations from the Student Submission 2010 section, improved communication between the University and the student body continues to be a recommendation. This is due to the dissatisfaction of students not being made aware of large-scale changes; for example, the Enhanced Student Year.

Consequently, the SU sees the University moving in the right direction in terms of communication to the student body, but it remains an area of on-going improvement.

Direction in collaborative partners

The SU has no legal responsibility for students of collaborative partners, including those studying at further education colleges within the student alliance. We do, however, try to provide informal support when requested. There is still uncertainty from the SU as to how and who we represent from collaborative partnerships; for example, in the case of academic appeals.

Space for students

Since 2010, study and leisure space for students has become more limited. Particularly following the closure of Pittville Campus in 2010, study space and social space is becoming a massive issue amongst the student body.

Oxstalls Campus

In 2011, the SU bar/café social space was removed by the University and replaced with office space. This had a massive impact on the student body at Oxstalls as they did not have a communal space in which to interact, study or engage with the SU.

Again, in 2014, the University replaced the Active Learning Space with the Growth Hub. This had another massive impact on the student body at Oxstalls, as they now had no area in which to do social learning.

Francis Close Hall (FCH) Campus

49 | P a g e

FCH has always lacked space in which to study or socialise, despite housing the largest number of students. The University has improved the bar and mezzanine above the refectory for group study space. This is all positive, but there is still a need to investigate space for students.

Park Campus

The SU at Park Campus was the main venue for the student experience, but it was removed in 2010. There was a high volume of footfall through the SU before the University took away this space and replaced it with teaching rooms. The SU has been moved to the far end of the refectory, where it is less visible for students and there is far less engagement as a result.

TC007 was a big hall space used by students to run fundraising events and for a teaching, study and social area. This space was cut by almost 50% in 2014 due to the space being needed, again, for teaching. This has had a big impact on the events run by the SU ; for example, the Tea Dance and Freshers’ Fayre. This has also impacted significantly on the student experience at the University.

As a result, the SU feels that the University should consider ways to increase the social learning and communal space for students at all of the campuses.

To conclude, the University is aware of problems and is addressing certain things, looking for continual improvement and moving in the right direction. Mentioned above are the recommendations from the student body 2015:

• Improved support for the Student Representative Scheme • Communication between the University, academics and the student body • Direction in collaborative partners • Space for students.