Student Submission to the QAA Higher Education Review 2016
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Introduction
The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Higher Education Review comes at a vital time for University College London (UCL). A new five-year education strategy has just been developed, and a number of new initiatives affecting students’ educational experiences are in the early stages of implementation. The opportunity to produce this Student Submission during this period of transition is therefore very welcome. I would like to thank UCL for the funding provided to ensure a high quality Student Submission was delivered.
As an organisation, we value the strong working relationship we maintain with the University. Students have been heavily involved in the development of various projects over the past few years, and it is important that UCL and UCLU maintain this partnership approach to the development of a quality student education. This partnership must be mirrored throughout the University, with staff at all levels engaging with students, enabling them to develop, and recognising students as partners in learning.
I believe the following report is reflective of the views of the members we represent. We have been open and engaging throughout the drafting of this document to ensure it accurately captures what it is like to be a student at UCL.
On behalf of the student body at UCL I would like to express our gratitude to the QAA for the opportunity to ensure students’ views are represented in the review process through this submission. I hope this document gives insight into the student experience at UCL and can act as a source of useful information to inform the Higher Education Review.
Wahida Samie Education & Campaigns Officer
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Methodology & Authorship This submission has been written in line with guidance provided by the QAA for Lead Student Representatives. It draws on existing data and documents produced by UCL and UCLU. Data sources include institutional surveys, research reports, committee minutes, policy papers, strategy documents, websites and campaign evaluations. Unfortunately, we were unable to capture students’ experiences of study abroad programmes and placements in this document. We were also unable to capture to views of students on collaborative provision programmes.
This submission was authored by the UCLU Education & Campaigns Officer supported by the Representation & Campaigns Coordinator (Insight). Progress on the Student Submission was regularly monitored by the UCLU Higher Education Review Planning Group, consisting of UCLU staff and student representatives. Faculty Student Academic Representatives (StARs) contributed to the direction of the Student Submission through a facilitated workshop. Students were able to submit comments and suggestions for the submission via the UCLU website. A forum open to all students presenting a draft of the Student Submission was held, offering students the opportunity to make suggestions for changes.
The Student Submission and the University’s Self-Evaluation Document have been shared across both organisations. Some reference is made to the Self-Evaluation Document in this submission however both documents remain independently produced.
The final draft of the Student Submission was approved through a democratic vote by UCLU Council, the body with responsibility for representing the voice of student members, on XX/XX/XX
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
UCLU
UCLU is the representative body for students at UCL and represents more than 35,000 students. UCLU is a democratic organisation run by elected student representatives who are directly accountable to students. Our vision is to open up opportunities for students during their time at UCL and enable them to make a fuller contribution in their future lives. Our mission is to be the voice for all our members; provide services, support and advice; and facilitate opportunities for students to share common interests. The UCLU Representation & Campaigns Department, working with the Education & Campaigns Officer and Postgraduate Students’ Officer, aims to inform and engage members of UCLU with the range of opportunities to be involved in representing the student voice and campaigning to make a difference for the wider student body.
UCLU plays an integral part in student life, we work closely with UCL on our shared endeavour for an inspirational student experience at UCL. We value working in partnership with UCL as we believe that students are key partners in their education; this partnership should be a mature relationship where all partners work together. Partners may at times be in conflict with differing views but will work constructively to ensure a mutual position is reached.
UCLU believe that partnership is something more than the sum of its parts. A university community with a strong culture of partnership promotes a sense of belonging and connectedness within and across all members of the community, which is underpinned by mutual respect, support and understanding, co-operation and collegiality.
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Progress since the Last Review
UCL established a Post Institutional Audit Steering Group (PIASG) and subsequent action plan to ensure the timely implementation of the recommendations of the 2009 Institutional Audit. UCLU welcomed the inclusion of a student representative on the PIASG, as well as the inclusion of recommendations from the Student Submission in the subsequent action plan. While significant developments were made in certain areas, many of which are referenced in the Self-Evaluation Document, some areas of concern still exist. The table below outlines key recommendations from the Institutional Audit and Student Submission, and a brief narrative on the progress so far. It is important to note that the PIASG was stood down in 2012 and so we cannot say that the implementation of these recommendations remained a consistent priority over the past number of years. The narrative provided surrounding the current situation is intentionally brief, as most of these issues are discussed later in the Student Submission.
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Institutional Audit (2009) Current Situation (2015)
IA: UCL should maintain its UCL has taken positive steps towards achieving momentum towards achieving institutional coherence on regulatory and academic institutional coherence on processes. Significant structural changes, including the regulatory and academic merger with the Institute of Education, have made processes identified by its own implementation of this recommendation more committees. challenging. While the standards set out in the UCL Academic Manual are intended to be universally applied, the volume of derogations is cause for concern.
IA: Where an institutional Following on from the issues outlined above, full and position has been reached on timely departmental engagement and alignment has not the harmonisation and yet been achieved. This is evident in the varying simplification of regulatory and experiences and satisfaction levels of students across academic processes, UCL the University. The struggle to implement alignment on a should seek to achieve full and practical level is discussed throughout the Student timely departmental Submission engagement and alignment. SWS: UCL should provide better UCLU is involved heavily in the International Student and more focused information Orientation Programme (ISOP). The information for International and Part-Time provided to international and part-time students is of an students. acceptable standard, however further provisions for international students could be introduced. This is discussed later in the Student Submission. Whilst not outlined as a key issue in the current Student Submission, the University should take care to provide comprehensive and focused information to part-time students, particularly considering the large number of part-time students studying at the new UCL Institute of Education.
SWS: UCL should give serious This relates to the IA recommendations outlined above. consideration to the issue of Whilst policies and processes have been established, feedback on academic NSS scores still indicate variability in satisfaction levels assessment as this is one of the across the institution with regard to assessment and key areas of student concern feedback. Satisfaction with assessment and feedback at cross-institution. UCL is also well below the sector average. This is examined in more detail in chapter three.
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Institutional Audit (2009) Current Situation (2015)
SWS: UCL should consider the Variability in NSS scores across the institution indicates inconsistencies that exist that this is still an issue at UCL. Whilst it is monitored at between faculties which an overall level by Academic Committee, it is likely that has[sic] led to radically this issue would be improved as a by-product of the conflicting student experiences. aforementioned derogations and departmental alignment. The mergers of the School of Pharmacy and Institute of Education have not been without difficulty. Progress on the integration of new faculties has often been slow.
SWS: UCL should ensure it Steps were taken to improve guidance and briefings for better informs students of all SSCC, DTC and FTC secretaries regarding the actions taken in response to reporting of results of matters arising from previous student feedback. meetings and more accurate minute-taking. However action taken in response to student feedback on surveys and other consultative decisions are rarely communicated. The recent appointment of a Head of Student Engagement will hopefully allow for further development in this area. This is discussed further in chapter one.
SWS: UCL should consider the The StARs scheme is subject to ongoing collaborative role of students within the monitoring and reviews with UCL and UCLU. institution and the restrictions it Recommendations from various reviews have been places on students as core implemented and improvements to the scheme (such as members of the institution the introduction of Faculty StARs) have been approved. (limited access to space, limited However, the UCL IA action plan did not refer to representation on committees, representation at University level. Student and limited contact time with representation and the UCL/UCLU relationship are staff). discussed in chapter one.
■good progress ■some progress ■ little progress
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Chapter One: Student Engagement
Relevant quality code chapters: B5, B8, B1, C, B11, B4
Representative Structures
1.1 The provisions for student representation on Academic Committees are outlined in the Academic Manual1. Provisions include student representation at departmental and faculty level committees, as well as representation on UCL Academic Standing and Sub-Committees. UCL recognises UCLU as the representative body for all UCL students.
1.2 At University level, student representatives sit on the vast majority of UCL’s formal standing committees including UCL Council, Academic Committee, Education Committee, and various sub-committees and working groups. Induction is provided for new student members of standing committees on an annual basis, and overall student representatives feel their views are acknowledged, listened to and often acted upon at institutional level UCLU sabbatical officers also have meetings with the Provost twice per term, where institutional issues and priorities are discussed.
1.3 The Student Academic Representatives (StARs) scheme is the primary student engagement initiative at departmental and faculty level. StARs2 are elected by students to represent students’ views to UCL. The StARs scheme is run by UCLU in partnership with UCL. StARs sit on various committees at programme, faculty and University level, at which they act as the voice of students and ensure that UCL takes into account the needs of students in its decision making processes. They achieve this through liaising with UCLU and UCL staff to resolve student issues. There are currently over 1000 departmental StARs, and approximately 25 Faculty StARs. The primary means by which staff engage with StARs is through Staff- Student Consultative Committees (SSCCs), which are required to meet at least twice each academic year. SSCC meetings provide StARs with the opportunity to feedback to administrative and academic staff regarding issues that have impacted on programmes and modules. UCLU maintains a database of issue trends at SSCC meetings by conducting analysis on the minutes of each meeting.
1 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c6/student-representation/department-faculty 2 https://uclu.org/representation/education/student-academic-representatives-stars#starsdefinition
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
1.4 Some StARs are also members of Departmental Teaching Committees (DTCs), where modifications to programmes, modules, teaching and assessment are considered and monitored. Faculty StARs are members of Faculty Teaching Committees (FTCs) and other faculty level committees.
7 UCLU Cross-UCL sabbatical decision-making
officers bodies
~40 Faculty decision- Faculty making bodies StARs
Departmental ~1000 decision-making StARs bodies
~37,000 Students
Figure 1: Academic Representation at UCL
1.5 Training and induction of StARs and Faculty StARs is provided by UCLU. UCLU also offers ongoing support and training throughout the year, for example through the delivery of advanced skills training sessions, and lunchtime briefings on topics that may be of benefit to StARs in their roles. . UCLU also uses Moodle to support the StARs scheme by providing resources to StARs, allowing for StARs to engage in discussion forums, and delivering online training. Induction training focuses on supporting
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
StARs to consider how they will approach the key elements of their role; gathering feedback from peers, prioritising issues for discussion, ensuring effective contributions to meetings, working with staff to ensure students’ issues are resolved, and feeding back to peers throughout. We also work to support a culture of student engagement by emphasising their role as a year-round representative, not merely a member of an SSCC. SSCCs at UCL typically meet only twice a year, but we encourage StARs to be proactive, and to seek out staff to work with on issues as they arise. We see a highly- functioning system of student representation, and a well-trained cohort of student representatives, as critical to ensuring effective student engagement.
1.6 In the current academic year (2015-16) we have also introduced an advanced training programme focused on building skills and ensuring effective engagement. This training has covered many skills including assertiveness, negotiation skills, public speaking, and running a campaign.
1.7 UCL and UCLU have a joint StARs Steering Group which oversees the coordination and development of the StARs scheme and monitors progress against the StARs Development Plan 2013-2016. The Steering Group also reports annually3 to the UCL Student Experience Committee (StEC) and UCL Education Committee (EdCom). Summaries of matters arising from department SSCC meetings as well as SEQ summaries are also reported to both StEC and EdCom. The creation of StEC is a welcome development, aimed at ensuring that non-academic student issues are dealt with appropriately.
1.8 To facilitate greater engagement from staff, UCLU produces a StARs Guide for Staff annually. This guide details the role of a StAR within the context of individual departments and faculties, and provides a list of useful resources and contacts. The guide is vital in ensuring UCL staff understand how the StARs scheme operates, and what is required of them to assist in the delivery of the scheme4.
1.9 The positive experiences of sabbatical officers with institutional engagement is not necessarily mirrored at departmental and faculty level. The 2015 StARs annual survey showed that 76.7% of respondents felt their SSCC operated effectively and
3 http://uclu.org/representation/education/student-academic-representatives-stars#StARs%20Annual%20Report 4 http://uclu.org/sites/uclu.org/files/u124308/documents/stars_guide_for_staff_updated_sept_2015_2.pdf
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
only 63.9% of respondents agreeing that they had a say in how their department was run. Analysis of StARs’ reflective statements show that issues persist from year to year, and at times it seems as though little action is taken to resolve these issues. While many departments engage with the StARs scheme effectively, many do not comply with the systems in place to both appoint StARs and ensure StARs are in place for a particular programme. “The department could be more effective in trying to implement our suggestions instead of throwing bureaucracy at us during the SSCC. They are good at easy-to-implement ideas but looking at minutes from previous years, the big issues are remaining as they are year after year.” – Respondent, StARs Annual Survey
1.10 StARs gain recognition for their work by receiving a certificate at their annual awards ceremony5. Although most StARs have their efforts accredited on their Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR)6. We believe students studying medicine and postgraduate taught students should also be permitted to engage with the HEAR scheme.
Feedback & Other Methods of Student Engagement
1.11 We recognise that UCL departments use Student Evaluation Questionnaires (SEQs) and that the results of these questionnaires feed into the programme review process. Some of these results or summaries of these results are shared at DTC or FTC meetings. A bank of SEQ questions is made available to staff. Departments and programmes decide on questions used in the evaluation process. This makes it difficult to directly compare satisfaction with other programmes and modules in a department, or across the University more widely. A move towards a centralised, online SEQ system has been discussed and we believe this would be of great benefit. However, we believe that simply administering SEQs is not a legitimate form of engagement. There is little evidence suggesting SEQs are discussed in a meaningful manner at SSCC meetings.
5 https://uclu.org/sites/uclu.org/files/u3877/documents/stars_certificate_guidance_note_2011-12_0.pdf 6 http://uclu.org/higher-education-achievement-report
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
1.12 Students can also feedback through the National Student Survey (NSS) and Student Barometer annually. The consideration of results from both of these feedback mechanisms is now a requirement as part of the Internal Quality Review (IQR) and Annual Student Experience Review (ASER) process. In addition, postgraduate research students have the opportunity to feedback through the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES), with faculties required to identify three key areas for improvement based on the results. Relevant Professional Services including the UCL Library Services and UCL Information Services Division (ISD) will also be required to report on intended actions based on these results. UCL will also participate in the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) for the first time this year.
1.13 UCLU facilitates the recognition and reward of staff who engage in quality teaching practices, and staff who provide essential support to teaching activities. This recognition takes the form of the Student Choice Teaching Awards7 (SCTA). The Student Choice Teaching Awards (SCTAs) have been entirely developed by students - they developed the criteria, created the name and make up the entirety of the judging panel. SCTA categories include outstanding teaching, outstanding support for teaching, outstanding personal support and outstanding researcher development. Approximately twelve staff members are recognised for their commitment annually.
1.14 UCL also cites other methods of student engagement in the SED including online discussion forums through moodle, student consultation events and focus groups. However, student participation in these initiatives is often low. Promotion of these initiatives is often restricted to ‘MyUCL’ newsletter and the UCL website. UCLU also promotes these activities amongst StARs. exploring new avenues to engage students in their educational experience is to be welcomed, we believe UCL should make a more concerted effort when promoting these alternative forms of student engagement. A more strategic and wide reaching approach to promotion would result in higher levels of engagement.
7 http://uclu.org/representation/education/student-choice-teaching-awards
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
1.15 UCL recognises the Personal Tutoring system as a method of student engagement in the SED. There are significant issues with this system, and these issues are addressed in chapter two. However, it is our view that a well-functioning personal tutoring system is vital in supporting students, but does not constitute student engagement as defined by the QAA.
1.16 Additionally, Professional Services (e.g. Library Services, Student Psychological Services, ISD) engage with students on an ad-hoc basis to gain feedback and work collaboratively on various projects.
1.17 UCLU holds an annual Education Conference, which provides a space for shared dialogue between students and staff to collaboratively examine and explore the future of education at UCL. The 2016 Education Conference will be themed around student involvement in the implementation of the UCL Education Strategy 2016-21. To date, engagement from UCL in the Education Conference has been positive, with UCL staff facilitating workshops and contributing to deliberations at the conference each year.
Student Engagement in Programme Design, Development & Approval
1.18 The process for approving programmes has recently changed at UCL. The Programme and Module Approval Steering Group (PMASG) has been replaced with a series of smaller Programme and Module Approval Panels (PMAPs). We welcome the inclusion of a student member on each of these panels. UCLU works in partnership with UCL to recruit a pool of students for these panels and provide induction, training and support. While the pool of staff meet together annually to discuss the operations of PMAPs, we believe the pool of students should also be part of this process. The Programme Institution Questionnaire (PIQ12) requests the core information needed for programme approval, including ‘market research’. It would be useful to gain greater clarity on how market research is conducted in this context. It is our belief that market research should refer mainly to gathering and valuing the opinions of current students, prospective students and alumni as part of this process.
Student Engagement in Programme Monitoring & Review
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
1.19 As stated earlier, the consideration of NSS and Student Barometer results are now a requirement as part of the Internal Quality Review (IQR) and Annual Student Experience Review (ASER) process. Student involvement in quality review also exists as part of the Internal Quality Review (IQR) process. Each review team includes one student reviewer, and students within a department are interviewed as part of the review process. UCLU work closely with the academic services team to ensure student reviewers are well-supported throughout the IQR process. In the past three years we have strengthened and deepened this partnership, and taken an increasingly co-ordinated approach to ensuring student reviewers can contribute confidently and effectively.
1.20 Student IQR reviewers attend an IQR briefing run by Academic Services, which is the same as that attended by new staff reviewers. UCLU also provide additional training to ensure context and clarity on the purpose of the review. Successful reviewers receive HEAR accreditation to accredit their contribution to IQR, subject to criteria based on their participation. We are also planning on ensuring that summary outcomes are made available to StARs in the reviewed department, to make sure they are aware the review has taken place, and are able to feed-in to planning how to take forward recommendations made by the IQR panel.
Recent Developments in Student Engagement
1.21 The UCL ChangeMakers Projects initiative is another element of Student Engagement at UCL. It supports students and staff working in partnership on educational enhancement projects at UCL8. The initiative facilitates student-initiated projects, supports the role of UCL ChangeMakers Scholars to work with departments on improving assessment and feedback practices, and offers grants to staff to work with students on a project to develop their teaching. UCLU has been involved in the development of the ChangeMakers Projects and the initiative is welcomed as an additional strand of student engagement. It is important, however, that initiatives like ChangeMakers do not duplicate existing engagement mechanisms. It is equally important that UCL takes a coordinated approach with UCLU in this area. We have particular reservations about the Scholars element of
8 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/changemakers
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
the Changemakers programme, as this threatens the functioning of the well- established StARs scheme. The role defined for ChangeMakers scholars is best played by student representatives at departmental level. The scholars initiative was launched without consulting UCLU, and a greater partnership approach in this instance would have proved beneficial. However, we look forward to continuing our work with UCL in supporting ongoing complimentary student engagement initiatives.
1.22 UCLU welcomed the establishment of the Student Experience Forum in 2013/14, providing an opportunity for elected student representatives, senior UCL officers and directors of important Professional Services to meet and take a strategic approach to monitoring and improving the student experience. However, with no status under the UCL formal standing committee structure, there were concerns about the effectiveness of this forum in having the capacity to implement decisions to improve the student experience. The revised remit and creation of a senior committee in the form of the Student Experience Committee (StEC), dealing with non-academic aspects of the student experience was therefore a welcome development.
1.23 The new appointments of UCL staff with a student engagement remit are also a welcome development. Specifically, the recent recruitment of a Head of Student Engagement and Student Experience Data Manager is a positive development. These roles are intended to work extensively on the NSS, Student Barometer, and PTES, with the PRES administered by the UCL Doctoral School. We hope that these new roles will facilitate a more coordinated approach to student engagement initiatives into the future and will work in partnership with UCLU.
1.24 The recently developed UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 outlines a clear objective “to create cultures of student engagement and leadership.” The draft document contains many positive strategic statements committing to more comprehensive investment in feedback surveys, staff-student partnerships working to tackle problems and creating a platform for mutual learning. We welcome the commitment to directly involve students in the creation and shaping of policy and practice at all levels and the description of UCL as a community of scholars. However a description of students as consumers in the document is worrying. The UCLU response to the UCL Education Strategy sets out a belief that “students are
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
partners, and that this should permeate every aspect of policy communication and the priorities set out in this strategy.” While UCL recognises UCLU as the representative body for all students, it was disappointing that UCLU were not mentioned in the objective.
Recommended Improvements to UCL’s Approach to Student Engagement
1.25 While UCLU enjoys representation on many of UCL’s formal standing committees, a lack of representation with respect to estates and the usage of space is a concern. The allocation, maintenance, availability and usage of space have been consistently highlighted as an issue for many students. It is important that students are engaged in frequent and meaningful conversations in relation to estates and the use of space and engagement on this matter should not be through surveys alone. Issues regarding space will be discussed in more detail in chapter 4. Students do not have representation on the University’s Estates Management Committee (EMC). The EMC deals with issues relating to the principles for the allocation and use of space and ongoing review of the UCL Estates Strategy. The lack of student membership is in contrast to a number of other Russell Group institutions whose EMC or equivalent include student membership. In the context of the space issues outlined later in this document, and the large scale capital projects currently ongoing at UCL, student membership on EMC is vital to ensure the student voice is considered in the agreement of future proposals and strategies. Perhaps of greater concern is the lack of student representation on the Learning Spaces Project Board. This Project Board considers activities including academic timetabling, room bookings and the quality and quantity of teaching and learning spaces. It is vital that the student voice is heard in relation to these issues.
Recommendation 1: UCL should enhance student engagement with estates issues in the context of limited space and ongoing capital projects by including student representation on the Learning Spaces Project Board and the Estates Management Committee.
1.26 With the wealth of recent developments to enhance student engagement, we believe that UCL should continue to develop a strong partnership with UCLU to replicate the successful collaboration evident with the StARs scheme. Engaging
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
students as partners is mentioned as an objective in UCL’s twenty year strategy, UCL20349, stating that “ensure that our students, at every level (UG, PGT and PGR), feel that they are a key and integral part of our University community, and that their opinions and suggestions are valued and acted upon, as full partners in the future of UCL.” In this regard, the best way to ensure effective student engagement is for UCL and UCLU to develop initiatives in partnership for student representation and engagement. The UCLU response to the UCL Education Strategy sets out a number of “ambitious goals for developing a partnership approach and more effective student engagement.” Our proposed goals are:
. Developing a joint UCL/UCLU Student Partnership Strategy, describing the different ways in which we will support students to individually and collectively engage with their education . Developing a high-level, cohesive, joint approach to the planning, implementation, oversight, and integration of student engagement initiatives, including StARs, ChangeMakers, and other forms of student engagement. . Ensuring decision-making is timed and structured in a way that is accessible to and instils confidence in students . Developing clear and enhanced policy on student representation . Continuing our joint work to deepen student involvement in quality assurance and enhancement
Recommendation 2: UCL should adopt the goals set out in the UCLU response to the UCL Education Strategy and subsequently work in partnership with UCLU to ensure students are engaged as partners in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience.
1.27 While the above mechanisms show that UCL takes steps to engage all students in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience, there are issues with communication when student feedback has been acted upon. Faculty StARs at a Higher Education Review workshop expressed concern that communication in this regard was not clear or effective in informing the wider student body of improvements made. While StARs can and often do communicate changes as a result of issues raised at SSCC meetings, the responsibility of ensuring students are aware of changes should be shared between the University and student
9 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-2034/principal-themes/academic-leadership/objectives
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
representatives. This viewpoint is supported by results highlighted in the Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES)10. Just 57% of respondents agreed that the institution values and responds to feedback from research degree students, while in one faculty, only 46% of students agreed with this statement. These figures are well below the sector average of 62%. Equally, in the 2015 Student Barometer summer wave, only 68% of students agreed that “student feedback on my course is taken seriously and acted upon.” We appreciate that UCL has recognised this as an issue in the Self-Evaluation Document, and look forward to positive developments in this area.
Recommendation 3: UCL should take necessary steps to implement a coordinated and wide-reaching communications strategy that informs students when changes have been made as a result of student feedback.
Student Engagement Summary
1.28 While formal mechanisms are in place to support aspects of student engagement, and deliberate steps have been taken to foster greater engagement in relation to quality assurance, the recommendations outlined above are vital in establishing a real sense of partnership for the enhancement of the student educational experience. We recognise that UCL have taken steps in the right direction in recent years with the establishment of a number of initiatives and the appointment of staff members to create a greater partnership culture. However, as many of these initiatives are new or in the early stages, we do not yet know how effective they will be.
1.29 UCLU and UCL together should harness a culture of student engagement that focuses on recognising students as partners in their learning. Mechanisms such as surveys and responses to feedback will only go some way to creating this culture. It is therefore vital that UCL commits to working collaboratively with UCLU and students on both new and ongoing student engagement initiatives. This starts with recognising the importance of the student voice in relation to estates and learning spaces, improving methods of communicating changes in response to feedback, and establishing a shared understanding of student partnership at UCL.
10 http://www.grad.ucl.ac.uk/survey/
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Chapter Two: Learning & Teaching Relevant quality code chapter: B3, C, B11, B4
UCL’s Strategic Approach to Learning & Teaching
2.1 UCL has two high-level documents detailing their strategic approach to education, with specific references to ambitions for teaching and learning. UCL2034 is a new 20- year strategy for UCL with a principal theme of being “A global leader in the integration of research and education, underpinning an inspirational student experience.”11 In this regard, UCL aims to “create a learning culture and curriculum structures that develop and foster independent thinking that is radical and disruptive.”
2.2 In the shorter term, the UCL Education Strategy 2016-21 outlines plans to implement initiatives that support UCL’s commitment to research-based education.12 The strategy names the embedding of the Connected Curriculum across the University as a key objective. The Connected Curriculum is an initiative with a focus of giving every student the opportunity to participate in research throughout their programme of study. More widely, the Connected Curriculum exemplifies a joined up approach to the delivery of education at UCL, promoting connection with the UCL community, the workplace, other subject areas and the outside world. UCLU continues to actively shape the Connected Curriculum initiative with UCL and we are supportive of UCL’s commitment to the initiative in the new UCL Education Strategy.
2.3 Objective five of the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 outlines UCL’s commitment to reviewing and revitalising the approach to postgraduate taught education, an objective that is again welcomed by students. We believe it would be beneficial to include UCLU in the early stages of implementation with this objective; assisting in the identification of issues raised by postgraduate taught students.
2.4 Objectives six and seven of the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 deal with resourcing issues related to space and digital infrastructure. The overarching commitment to improve the quantity and quality of space provision is certainly positive. Issues regarding space provision and related recommendations are outlined later in this section. The
11 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-2034/principal-themes/integrating-research-education/objectives 12 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/2016-21
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
UCLU response to the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 welcomed the digital infrastructure objective as “ambitious and specific.
2.5 UCL Arena demonstrates UCL’s commitment to the enhancement of teaching practice for lecturers, teaching fellows and postgraduate students who teach (PGTAs).13 UCL Arena is described as “a meeting place where colleagues can share approaches to teaching and learning.” UCL Arena is accredited by the Higher Education Academy, and engages with the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF). It is encouraging to see a programme dedicated to the enhancement of provision in this area, and we hope the University works to secure greater staff uptake with UCL Arena initiatives into the future.
Teaching Provision at UCL
2.6 Scores from the 2015 NSS, whilst slightly below the sector average, indicate that the vast majority of students (86%) are satisfied with the teaching on their programme of study. Figure 1 below outlines the percentage of students agreeing with the outlined statements relating to “The teaching on my course.”
Satisfaction with Teaching 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Staff are good at Staff have made the Staff are enthusiastic The course is explaining things subject interesting about what they are intellectually teaching stimulating
Figure 2: NSS 2015 - Student Satisfaction with "The Teaching on my Course"
13 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/arena
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Summer wave 2015 Student Barometer results are also positive and consistent with this figure, with 84.2% of respondents indicating that they were satisfied with their learning experience.
“Generally, the teaching has been of a really high standard, with approachable and well informed staff.” – Student Comment, NSS 2015
2.7 While the results remain positive on the whole, it is disappointing that the rate of satisfaction with teaching and learning in the NSS has remained relatively stagnant over the past six years. The Institutional Teaching and Learning Strategy 2010 – 2015 committed to establishing “excellence in teaching and learning”, with specific commitments to introduce measures to revise support for teaching and learning and roll out an online teaching and learning portal. While initiatives such as UCL Arena were designed for this purpose, it is disappointing to see that efforts to enhance students’ learning experience have not been reflected in NSS results. UCL was once ahead of the sector average in this area, however a slight drop in satisfaction scores at the University, coupled with increasing satisfaction elsewhere in the sector has meant that UCL is now lagging behind. In addition, Student Barometer results for learning satisfaction (while still high at 82%) have declined steadily since 2008. We recognise the commitments outlined in the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 and hope they are implemented effectively so UCL can become a sector leader in this area once more.
2.8 While the institutional outlook is positive, closer examination of scores in individual faculties shows that there is significant variability between scores. Figure 2 below depicts the satisfaction scores by faculty.
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0
Faculty Satisfaction with Teaching
Figure 3: NSS 2015 - Student Satisfaction with "Teaching on My Course" by faculty
2.9 In fact, deeper analysis of scores in this area shows that variability in satisfaction with teaching exists within faculties themselves, at a departmental level. For example, in the Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment where 88% of Architecture respondents were satisfied with teaching on their course, compared to just 66% of Planning (Urban, Rural and Regional) students. In this regard, we believe UCL should work to ensure that teaching practice remains of a consistently high standard across the board by achieving cross faculty and departmental participation in enhancement initiatives.
Recommendation 4: UCL should take steps to secure cross-University participation and alignment with teaching enhancement activities like UCL Arena.
2.10 Analysis of trends of issues raised at SSCC meetings has consistently identified teaching as the most frequently raised issue at SSCC meetings. In 2014/15 teaching issues were raised 575 times at SSCC meetings, representing 38% of all issues raised. This reflects an appetite for students to engage with staff and work collaboratively on teaching and learning issues. Each teaching issue identified is then sub-categorised based on the nature of the issue raised. The sub-categories are teaching rooms, module content, teaching delivery (including resources), teaching standards, learning resources, class/seminar sizes, and assessment issues. 219 of teaching issues related to teaching delivery (including resources), while just 18 teaching issues related to teaching standards. These figures have remained relatively consistent since records began. While
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
the low number of issues relating to teaching standards is positive; the high proportion of teaching delivery issues may be slightly more concerning.
2.11 UCL Arena aims to provide support opportunities for postgraduate students who teach. PRES results indicate a need for greater development in this area. Only 54% of respondents felt they were given appropriate support and guidance for their teaching, while just 48% received formal teaching for their training. This is below the sector average figures for both areas which stand at 57%. The proportion of postgraduate research students who had taught or demonstrated during their research degree programme was 45%, 5 percentage points lower than the sector average.
2.12 Quality in teaching is recognised through the Student Choice Teaching Awards (SCTA) organised by UCLU, and through the Provost’s Teaching Awards, organised by UCL. Procedures exist to identify poor teaching through the student complaints procedure.14 Students are encouraged in the first instance to contact student representatives or module coordinators before exploring more formal complaint procedures.
2.13 We welcome the commitment outlined in the enablers section of the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 to establish parity of esteem between teaching and research relating to reward and promotion criteria. We believe this is vital in ensuring quality teaching is recognised and appreciated.
Learning Resources – Library
2.14 NSS results indicate that overall students are satisfied with the provision of learning resources at UCL. The satisfaction score of 84% is only slightly below the sector average of 86%, however again UCL should remain vigilant as the satisfaction score in 2010 was 1% higher than the sector average. In particular, students are satisfied with library facilities, with 88% of respondents agreeing that “the library resources and services are good enough for my needs.”
2.15 While the NSS results show a positive undergraduate student experience with library resources, this may not be the case universally. The most recent LibQual survey administered by UCL Library Services in 2013 showing that postgraduate students were
14 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c1/complaints/Student_Complaints_Procedure.pdf
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
more dissatisfied with the library than undergraduate students. The greatest concern of postgraduate students was regarding space for individual study, while all students expressed discontentment with noise around the library sites. This therefore made a case for more quiet study rooms, more group study spaces or more social spaces to ensure noise is contained elsewhere. Positively, the 2015 PRES showed that 88% of postgraduate research respondents felt there was adequate provision of library facilities (including physical and online resources). In addition, issues relating to libraries were raised just three times in SSCC meetings in the 2014/15 academic year. UCL Library Services provide a range of opportunities for students to deliver feedback, and the low rate of issues at SSCC meetings may be reflective of this. Overall it seems students are satisfied with the provision of library services at UCL, however we would encourage the University to protect study spaces and prevent noise as student numbers continue to increase.
“The main library is a brilliant place to work although in the last year it has felt a lot busier than it used to” – Student Comment, NSS 2015
2.16 This year, UCLU proposed that the Main Library, the Science Library and the Cruciform Hub open on a 24/7 basis in the run up to exams and during the exam revision period. This proposal was subsequently approved and adopted with the support of UCL Library Services. This is a key example of the University taking action in response to student feedback (through NSS feedback and discussions with UCLU sabbatical officers) and disseminating this information effectively. This practice should be replicated in other areas, as recommended before.
2.17 The UCL library services strategy places the user experience at the centre of its work15. It outlines an action to draw up a student services charter for UCL Library Services, improve staff training and working in partnership with students and other users. This is a comprehensive strategy and we look forward to seeing this plan implemented over the coming years. In addition, UCL Library Services have been proactive in working alongside students and UCLU to develop and shape learning spaces. UCL Library Services have delivered sessions on learning spaces at the UCLU Education
15 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/about/strategy
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Conference for the past two years, demonstrating their commitment to establishing an open dialogue between staff and students. Replication of this level of engagement across all University services would be welcomed.
Learning Resources – IT provision
2.18 Respondents in the 2015 NSS indicated a high level of satisfaction with IT provision, with 86% of respondents being able to access general IT resources when they needed to. The 2015 Student Barometer summer wave results support this view, with 90% of domestic respondents and 89% of international respondents satisfied with IT support. While useful, these questions are rather general, and give little information regarding students’ true experiences of engaging with IT provision at UCL. Feedback from the 2015 PRES indicated that just 74% of postgraduate research students felt there was adequate provision of computing resources and facilities.
2.19 UCL’s Information Services Division (ISD) ran a user survey powered by TechQual in December 2015. For each service area, students were asked to identify the minimum service level they expected, their desired service level and their perceived service level. Students perceived service level of reliable internet and adequate Wi-Fi both fell below their minimum expected service level. This was also the case when referring to the availability of classrooms or meeting spaces with technology that enhances the teaching and learning experience. Perceived standards also fell below minimum expectations in relation to finding and using PCs on campus and finding and using printing, scanning and copying facilities on campus. The eleven other areas assessed, including having websites and online services that are easy to use, having online services that enhance the teaching and learning experience, and questions relating to support and training, either met or exceeded the minimum expected standard. Worryingly, no area met or exceeded respondents’ desired standard of service. We acknowledge that ISD are now taking steps to respond to the results of this survey by implementing improved standards of service.
2.20 Staff members were also invited to participate in the same survey, and overall their responses painted a significantly more negative picture of IT provision at UCL. In particular, service fell well below expected standards in relation to reliable internet,
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
adequate Wi-Fi, the availability of classrooms or meeting spaces with technology that enhances the teaching and learning experience, and getting timely resolution of technology problems. However, staff responses to this particular survey raise a cause for concern. The UCL Education Strategy 2016 – 2021 outlines a number of ambitious plans that will rely heavily on increased and improved IT provision across the University. At an open Town Hall meeting to discuss the draft Education Strategy in December 2015, staff expressed a number of concerns regarding the ability of ISD to meet the demands likely to be placed upon IT provision in the coming years. In one particular department, an online supervised test for 550 students was unable to go ahead due to IT failures. It was their belief that online testing was a positive development resulting in significantly lower failure rates, but capacity and reliability issues make it a less viable option. With increasing student numbers and a likely increase in the complexity of technological requirements to support learning, it is vital that ISD receives necessary resources to tackle these issues. At the same meeting, it was explained that of the funding available, approximately half would be spent on fixing current basic infrastructure. We believe is vital that UCL ensures current basic infrastructure is functioning well before embarking upon ambitious IT projects to which poor IT provision could prove detrimental. “As a tutor, we need to be able to trust and rely on the system in order to provide high quality teaching sessions within which we need to access the
Internet and know it won't crash” – Staff Respondent, ISD Survey 2015
Recommendation 5: UCL should invest in ensuring IT provision is of a desirable service level for staff and students and ensure adequate resources are in place to support technology-based projects outlined in the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021.
2.21 The previous ISD Student Survey in 2013 outlined things that students most want to change in relation to IT provision. More computers in departments, libraries and around campus was the “thing students most want to change” followed by improving and extending IT support, more printers, wireless printing, and improved Wi-Fi. ISD summarised a number of actions being taken in response to student feedback from this survey and working alongside UCLU, including the introduction of a laptop loan scheme,
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
development of the Lecturecast service, and encouraging staff to use learning technologies. UCLU have worked collaboratively with ISD on these improvements, however more could be done to communicate this joint effort and outcomes to staff and students across UCL.
2.22 The 2013 ISD Student Survey was replaced by the TechQual survey issued in 2015. While the TechQual survey is useful, particularly for benchmarking against the sector, the ISD Student Survey provided specific feedback on UCL services including Moodle and Lecturecast and also asked specific questions relating to learning spaces. Again in reference to chapter one, it is vital that the University engages with students in a way that is both frequent and meaningful. Generalist surveys provide useful feedback, but do not always provide feedback that is meaningful and can subsequently be used to implement change.
Learning Resources – VLE & Printed Resources
2.23 UCL makes use of Moodle to host its virtual learning environment. In the ISD Student Survey of 2011 and the 2013 equivalent students listed Moodle as the most liked and third most liked thing about IT provision respectively. When asked to give examples of good practice in relation to technology use in teaching and learning, respondents in the 2013 survey listed basic Moodle use as the most effective. Student satisfaction with Moodle was the second highest of all IT facilities in 2013 with almost 90% of respondents satisfied with it. Overall students are satisfied with the Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) at UCL. The University must ensure this remains the case as they attempt to introduce more complex technology-focused teaching and learning initiatives. Additionally, UCLU supports a blended approach to learning that takes advantage of advances in technology, which complements face-to-face teaching.
2.24 Each programme provides students with a handbook that should detail information relating to most aspects of study including registration, teaching and learning practices, as well as student support provision. For the purposes of this submission, we obtained a number of programme handbooks to assess the information provided to students. While many departments and programmes provide students with detailed information regarding the aforementioned areas, this is certainly not the case universally. Some
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
handbooks did not provide any information relating to personal tutors, or support services and very limited information in a variety of other areas. UCL has recognised in the Self-Evaluation Document that the “processes for updating information and ensuring that it is current and correct need further development.” This is a matter of real importance in ensuring every student is given sufficient information regarding their studies.
Recommendation 6: UCL should provide guidance regarding the minimum level of information required in programme handbooks and work to achieve departmental alignment with this guidance.
Learning Resources – Space & Facilities
2.25 UCL’s location in Central London poses inevitable space issues. A summary of the 2013 LibQual survey administered by UCL Library Services indicated that “the space provided by UCL Library Services is not currently close to meeting the desired levels of service for undergraduate students.” As mentioned earlier, respondents in the survey declared a preference for more quiet study rooms, more group study spaces or more social spaces in order to keep noise away from other students seeking a quiet place to study. The same survey received a lot of free text responses stating that library spaces were too cramped.
2.26 Satisfaction with learning spaces stood at just 76% of respondents in the 2015 Student Barometer summer wave. In addition, just 72% of postgraduate research respondents to the PRES agreed that they have a suitable working space. This echoes complaints received by the UCLU Postgraduate Students’ Officer (PSO) throughout the year about unsuitable and sometimes unsafe working spaces for postgraduate research students. The PSO indicated, through interview for the Student Submission, that she had received a number of complaints about work spaces being too small and not fit for purpose.
2.27 In the recent past, a number of space-related policies have been debated and adopted by UCLU Council. In particular, students have voted to seek more study space in UCL during the weekends, and improved examination venues. Facility related issues made up approximately 7% of all issues raised at SSCC meetings in 2014/15.
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
2.28 A policy recently adopted by UCLU Council relating to examinations noted that “the UCL estate is too small and poorly managed and utilised, particularly in the context of expanding student numbers” and calling for “wholesale change in the way examination timetable are produced”. The UCLU Education and Campaigns Officer is part of an Exams Working Group exploring these issues, and this policy remains a priority over the coming year.
2.29 We welcome UCL’s commitment to the development of new study spaces as part of the UCL Estates Masterplan16. We believe that study spaces should be collocated with teaching spaces and academic departments. Our view is that UCL should maintain a strategy for cautious growth, ensuring any increase in student numbers is accompanied by equivalent increased resource to support student learning. Equally important is the necessity to alleviate pressure on already crowded facilities on the Bloomsbury campus. With large scale development of the UCL estate, and students clearly expressing preferences for the way in which space should be used, it is clear that the student voice must be represented on relevant committees. We therefore must reiterate the importance of our previous recommendation to enhance student engagement with estates in the context of limited space and ongoing capital projects by adding a student representative to the membership of the Learning Spaces Project Board and the Estates Management Committee.
Supporting Student Learning
2.30 The University supports students to achieve learning outcomes by investing in resources to support staff in improving teaching quality, including the UCL Arena programme, UCL ChangeMakers and the Connected Curriculum. The Centre for Advancing Learning and Teaching (CALT) facilitates each of these initiatives. In relation to teaching and learning, projects have included academic skills mentoring in the Institute of Education, and PhD writing retreats in the departments of Anthropology and English.
2.31 2015 NSS scores relating to the specifics of academic support were quite low with only 71% of students satisfied they had received sufficient advice and support with their
16 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/masterplan
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
studies, and the same proportion satisfied that good advice was available when they needed to make study choices.
2.32 The personal tutoring system at UCL aims to provide every student with a member of academic staff to act as a point of contact throughout their studies. This personal tutor should take an interest in the student, offer guidance on overall academic progress as well as personal and professional development. They are also often referred to as the first point of contact for students when they wish to discuss any welfare related issues. UCLU fully supports the spirit of personal tutoring and believes it could be of great benefit to students. However, there is a large degree of inconsistency in the implementation of the personal tutoring system across UCL. In the 2015 Summer Wave Student Barometer, approximately 73% of free text responses relating to personal tutors were negative. “Personal tutors demonstrate extreme disinterest in their students, I would be surprised if mine could name/ recognise me” – Student Comment, 2015 Student Barometer
2.33 An investigation conducted by an appointed personal tutoring working group at UCL found that students’ experiences of personal tutoring were highly variable, both between and within departments. The investigation goes on to suggest that students’ negative experiences of tutoring seem to make them feel isolated and undervalued. This may not only have an impact on their satisfaction with UCL, but may affect how much they are able to achieve during their time here. The working group highlighted two important factors that we believe are key to explaining issues with the personal tutoring system. The first is that a common feature of negative tutoring experiences stem from a lack of commitment of the tutor involved. Secondly, the group found that fewer than four in ten departments provide any form of training or developmental support to personal tutors. The report also declared that the uptake of resources to support student learning through the personal tutoring system is quite limited. UCL has provided a handbook for personal tutors, but the system in general is falling far short of the model scenario.
2.34 In instances where personal tutoring is effective, students find the relationship to be one of trust, with engagement with personal tutors proving beneficial, motivational and
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
reassuring. We want UCL to ensure that this is the case for every student. The personal tutoring working group proposed two recommendations, the first to provide students with individual guidance on their progress once per term (although not necessarily through the personal tutoring system) and the second to clarify responsibilities of a lead for student learning and development support in each department. While these developments are necessary, we do not believe the recommendations go far enough in attempting to repair a fundamentally broken personal tutoring system. It is particularly important that a coordinated approach to the programme is taken, with clear lines of responsibility for monitoring and overseeing personal tutoring on an ongoing basis. We would welcome the opportunity to work with UCL on improving the personal tutoring system, to ensure that students are enabled to develop in their field of study effectively.
Recommendation 7: UCL should take greater steps to improve the personal tutoring system, for example through securing increased commitment from personal tutors, establishing a coordinated approach to supporting personal tutoring and through the provision of appropriate training and support throughout the year.
2.35 In the Self-Evaluation Document, UCL recognises a need to establish better support systems for staff in overseas campuses. This is a welcome statement, and idea that should be extended to students on oversea campuses. UCL Australia provides an example of where a lack of support systems negatively impacted the learning experience of students on the campus. In correspondence with UCLU, students at UCL Australia expressed genuine concern regarding the environment in which they were undertaking their PhD programmes. Students felt their rights were not adequately provided for and resources to support students in their studies were insufficient. Despite raising these issues through appropriate channels, no constructive solutions were provided. A submitted grievance ruled in favour of the students involved. In addition, issues with UCL Australia were formally documented in IQR reports and formal recommendations were made. However, these recommendations were not adhered to in this case. UCL Australia is to wind down by 2017; however we hope the experience of these students’ acts as a cautionary tale.
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Recommendation 8: In embarking upon initiatives on overseas campuses and establishing collaborative provision programmes, UCL should take steps to ensure students receive the same level of support as those studying on the main UCL campus.
Equality in Teaching & Learning
2.36 UCL have made a number of high level commitments aimed at taking an inclusive approach to learning and teaching. We have worked successfully to date with UCL on the “Liberating the Curriculum” initiative, which seeks to challenge the current euro- centric, white-hegemonic, male-dominated curriculum. A working group has been established to determine ways of putting black, queer, disabled and feminist contributions on an equal footing in the curriculum.
2.37 UCL has also become one of the first universities in the UK to receive an award for taking action to tackle racialized inequalities in the academic sphere, gaining a bronze award in the Race Equality Charter for higher education. It is encouraging that the success of different categories of students (e.g. international, BME) will be explicitly monitored as part of the ASER process. We recognise and support initiatives taking place to reduce the BME attainment gap. UCL are proactive in taking opportunities to reaffirm this commitment in various strategic documents. We are also proud of the ongoing work of widening participation staff at UCL. UCLU has been actively engaged in the development of UCL’s Access Agreements and supports the objectives of UCL’s Widening Participation Strategy.
2.38 The UCL e-learning framework provides guidance on best practice on accessibility of learning materials. Students also receive great support through the UCL Student Disability Service (SDS)17. UCL has acknowledged that the Bloomsbury campus is not yet fully Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant. Last year, the UCLU Disabled Students’ Network launched the “Try it”18 campaign aimed at educating students and staff about various disabilities, and engaging them with tasks to experience what it is like to navigate UCL as a disabled person. The campaign subsequently received the NUS Campaign of the Year award.
17 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/disability 18 http://uclu.org/tryit
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
“Mainly so far people have just found that it’s hopelessly signposted. So, even if there is an accessible path for someone to take, they have no way of knowing and they just have to roam around.” – UCL Student, Try It Campaign
2.39 This is a serious issue affecting the disabled students we represent, and one that should be a priority of Estates Management Committee (EMC). This once again provides support for our stated recommendation to establish student representation on the University’s EMC. A video was produced depicting the inaccessibility of venues around UCL and is available to view online19.
Learning & Teaching Summary
2.40 Students are generally satisfied with the provision of teaching and learning opportunities at UCL. However there are a number of areas that require improvement to ensure every student is given the opportunity to develop as an independent learner and to ensure their capacity to think in different ways is enhanced. While teaching enhancement activities like UCL Arena are to be welcomed, it is important to ensure that they are implemented and utilised across the University. High uptake in certain disciplines and low uptake in others could, for example, lead to drastically different standards of teaching for two students taking different modules but on the same programme of study. Whilst generally satisfied with the library, students have not been as forthcoming with praise for IT provision at UCL. With large scale IT upgrades necessary to ensure the implementation of the UCL Education Strategy, this is an area that must be monitored closely. A reliable and capable IT system is vital for the independent learner of today. Pressure on space and facilities in the face of changing student demands, as well as failures to secure a DDA compliant campus once again reiterate our call for representation on key relevant estates committees. The personal tutoring system at UCL is in desperate need for improvement, and a wider strategic approach to student support would be welcomed. It is of particular importance to ensure students on other campuses are not disadvantaged in any way, and are provided with the same level of support as all other students. We look forward to engaging with UCL on improving students’ experience of learning and teaching at the University.
19 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8RiAEdWF4c
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Chapter Three: Assessment & Feedback
Relevant quality code chapters: B4, B6, B7, B9, B11
Student Satisfaction with Assessment & Feedback
3.1 NSS scores for student satisfaction on assessment and feedback have been consistently low over the past six years. Satisfaction has remained at approximately 61%, while average satisfaction in the sector has increased every year. Figure 1 below shows the trajectory of assessment and feedback satisfaction scores in the NSS for both the sector and UCL since 2010.
74 72 70 68
66 64 Sector
%satisfied 62 UCL 60 58 56 54 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Year
Figure 4: NSS 2015 student satisfaction with assessment and feedback
3.2 When analysed at faculty level, the outlook remains poor with satisfaction in the Faculty of Engineering as low as 51%. Again looking deeper, we see that satisfaction at departmental level falls to a low of 31%.
3.3 There are five questions in the NSS that relate directly to assessment and feedback. 74% of students indicated satisfaction that assessment arrangements and marking had been fair, raising the average to the 61% figure mentioned above. Lower percentages of students were satisfied with the promptness of feedback on their work, that they had
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
received detailed comments on their work, and that the feedback on their work helped them to clarify things they didn’t understand. 63% of students agreed that the criteria used in marking had been made clear in advance. Figure 2 below charts the satisfaction rate for each question.
Asessment and Feedback 80 70 60 Fair assessment arrangements and 50 marking 40 30 Marking criteria made clear in 20 advance 10 Prompt feedback on work 0 Feedback helped clarify things I didn't understand Received detailed comments on my work
Figure 5: Student satisfaction with assessment and feedback
3.4 These poor satisfaction scores were again evident in research carried out by UCLU in 2011. 44% of 1800 respondents in that survey were not aware of what feedback they could expect on their work. This research took the form of a six question survey relating to the feedback service standards approved by the UCL Academic Committee in 201020.
3.5 The 2015 Student Barometer summer wave results paint a slightly less negative picture with assessment, performance feedback and marking criteria having satisfaction levels of 79%, 68% and 66% respectively. PRES results indicate that 74% of postgraduate research respondents agreed that the final assessment procedures for their degree were clear to them; however this figure was at a low of 66% in one faculty.
20 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/feedback
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
3.6 Trends analysis of issues raised at SSCC meetings consistently identify assessment and feedback issues as one of the most frequently raised items. Assessment issues and concerns regarding the promptness and thoroughness of feedback together accounted for approximately 15% of all issues raised by StARs in 2014/15. This is consistently an issue raised when looking at trends in previous years.
3.7 It is clear, given the results outlined above from various sources, that fundamental assessment and feedback issues need to be addressed.
Assessment & Feedback: The Current Situation
3.8 Assessment regulations are outlined in the UCL Academic Manual.21 It is important that assessment practices are fair across the University, and we recognise that individual departments may need to employ different assessment practices given the nature of the discipline. Derogations are therefore outlined as part of assessment regulations in the UCL Academic Manual. However, the sheer volume of derogations in this area is cause for concern. Nine of eleven faculties have approved derogations or variations from the main UCL assessment regulations. Some encompass individual programmes of study, while other derogations apply to the department or faculty as a whole. Although NSS results do not provide us with the level of detail necessary to understand reasons for student dissatisfaction, it is interesting to note that the Faculty with the lowest NSS assessment and feedback satisfaction (Engineering) has a six page list of undergraduate derogations.
3.9 We feel that UCL places too much emphasis on the three-hour unseen end of year exam. There is a lack of diversity in assessment methods employed in many departments. UCL has a number of guiding principles for assessment at the University22. These principles refer to ensuring assessment is proportionate, encourages student understanding of the assessment process, and consider diversity of the student population. There is a lack of reference to the need for diversity in assessment methods.
3.10 The external examining system at UCL provides monitoring for the quality of assessment processes. This year, for the first time, external examiner reports have been made
21 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/c4-intro 22 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/assessment_guiding_principles
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
available to students. However at this stage, few students are aware of the external examining system and the availability of the external examiner reports. UCLU have attempted to disseminate this information through StARs but there has been little engagement so far. UCLU endeavours to make students aware of this new development and work with UCL to raise awareness, especially through departmental websites, handbooks and SSCC meetings.
3.11 Following discussions with UCLU, UCL implemented Service Standards for the Provision of Feedback to Students on Assessed Work. Under these standards, students should expect feedback to be provided within four weeks of the submission deadline. While these Service Standards are helpful, NSS scores regarding promptness of feedback seem to indicate that they are not being met. “Personally I believe that the feedback times are getting better but still aren't great. It seems unfair that we as students are given deadlines to complete work and lose marks if we miss them whilst if lecturers miss deadlines they seem to be penalised less.” – Student Comment, Student Barometer Autumn 2014
3.12 The Service Standards, as outlined, provide little direction regarding the components of quality feedback. A number of resources23 are available to assessors to use in providing feedback, including a feedback proforma24, and details of the NUS Assessment and Feedback Benchmarking Tool25. UCL Arena provides useful resources to assist in delivering quality feedback, including workshops exhibiting best practice in the area.26 Staff at these workshops have raised concerns over their ability to deliver detailed feedback when assessing a large volume of students. Best practice in this area is normally exhibited by assessors with a relatively low number of students. However there is no requirement for assessors to make use of these resources, and no regulations to ensure feedback provided is detailed or allows students to clarify things they didn’t understand.
23 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/case-studies/assessment-feedback 24 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/Using_Proformas_for_Feedback_Quick_Guide.pdf 25 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/NUS-assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool.pdf 26 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/case-studies/assessment-feedback
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
3.13 Processes around the provision of feedback are inconsistent. There are, however, pockets of good practice in relation to feedback at UCL. For example, some modules in the UCL Institute of Education implement a peer review of feedback programme. Under this programme, a staff reviewer is provided with guidance to complete a feedback review form which identifies types of effective feedback, and what to look for in the assessor’s comments.27 The reviewer then provides written observations of the assessor’s feedback. This is a method also currently being explored by the UCL Department of Geography. Unfortunately this again highlights an issue with the loose nature of guidance and regulations, surrounding quality feedback at UCL, and adherence to any such regulations. The University needs to encourage good feedback practices across the University as a whole. The previous section showed clearly that student satisfaction around the quality of feedback provided is low.
Recommendation 9: UCL, in partnership with UCLU, should take major steps to improve assessment and feedback processes at the University, using NSS satisfaction scores as a measure of success.
Demonstrating Good Academic Practice in Assessment
3.14 There is little evidence to suggest that all students are provided with sufficient information to demonstrate good academic practice. The main focus of the work of CALT is on providing resources for staff to improve assessment and feedback practices. Although information regarding assessment can be found in most departmental handbooks, students are rarely given guidelines or examples of how to demonstrate good academic practice in an assessment setting.
3.15 The UCL Transition Programme goes some way towards addressing these issues. By providing first year students with a later-year student from within the same department, the Transition Programme aims to assist students during their first few weeks at UCL28. Part of this programme focuses on academic issues and topics relevant to the discipline. The Transition Programme website also provides some information on developing study skills necessary to learn independently including time management, structuring essays,
27 https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/mod/hsuforum/discuss.php?d=16081 28 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/transition
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
reading and research.29 These resources, while useful, are difficult for students to access, hosted on a subpage of the Transition Programme webpages.
3.16 UCL offers students access to a skills4studycampus.com online resource. Similarly, this resource provides students with information relating to time management, reading and note-taking and critical thinking skills.30 However uptake of the resource is very low, and again difficult to access through a subpage of the CALT webpages.
3.17 The CALT webpages seems to focus almost entirely on the advancement of teaching practices with staff, and very few resources are available to students. For example, many of the guides produced by CALT are aimed at a staff audience, who are expected to pass this information on to students.31 While it is both useful and necessary to equip relevant staff with this information, similar resources aimed at students in an accessible format would prove beneficial.
3.18 In general, the onus is placed on individual faculties and departments to provide vital resources and workshops to support students in demonstrating good academic practice. Some faculties provide study skills guides to assist students in demonstrating good academic practice32, but this is not the case universally. Individual faculties and departments also offer workshops to assist in demonstrating good academic practice but the frequency of these workshops is hugely variable. For example, the UCL School of European Languages, Culture & Society (SELCS) run numerous “Writing Lab” workshops throughout the year33 and the UCL Institute of Education hosts an academic writing centre34. However, when searching websites of some other departments, we could not identify anything of a similar nature.
3.19 The lack of a coherent approach to supporting students in developing necessary academic skills, and demonstrating these skills through assessment, is a cause for great concern. As evidenced by NSS scores above, students are in need of greater support.
29 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/transition/study-skills-resources 30 http://www.skills4studycampus.com/StudentHome.aspx 31 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/Helping_Students_Understand_Assessment_Quick_Guide.pdf 32 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ssees/current-students/undergraduate/undergraduate-documents/ug-study-skills.pdf 33 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/selcs-writing-lab/workshops 34 https://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/147.html
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Recommendation 10: UCL should offer greater support to students to help demonstrate good academic practice in assessment. This support should include easily accessible resources, and a consistent level of staff support through workshops.
Reasonable Adjustments/Extenuating Circumstances & Academic Appeals
3.20 The process for submitting academic appeals is clearly outlined in the UCL Academic Manual. Students can receive advice and representation through the UCLU Rights & Advice Centre. Data from the UCLU Rights & Advice Centre indicates that the proportion of students visiting the service seeking support with an academic appeal is rather low with just 104 academic cases out of 2,491 cases overall in 2014/15. We hope this indicates that students are informed of the processes involved in academic appeals, and understand the information provided.
3.21 The University takes steps to ensure no student is at a disadvantage when undergoing assessment at the University. Support for students with disabilities or a long-term condition is provided by UCL Student Disability Services (SDS)35. The University provisions for extenuating circumstances provide short-term solutions for students experiencing sudden, unexpected difficulties. These provisions are outlined in the UCL Academic Manual.36 Last year, there were issues regarding the interpretation of new extenuating circumstances regulations and some confusion about the treatment of reasonable adjustments in terms of declared disabilities. However, this is now being reviewed after one year of operation and UCLU is part of this review.
Summary - Addressing Assessment & Feedback Issues at UCL
3.22 Objective three of the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 is “to address and resolve the persistent challenges of assessment and feedback.”37 We therefore recognise that this is an issue UCL is now taking seriously and this will be of real importance to students. This chapter has so far analysed various issues with consistency across departments as possible causes for low student satisfaction. However, satisfaction scores for assessment and feedback are low for the University as a whole, and we can only theorise regarding the causes for these low scores. We therefore understand that UCL
35 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/disability 36 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/sum 37 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/edu-strategy-draft-v5.pdf
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
has a large body of work ahead to properly analyse and understand the core issues resulting in poor satisfaction with assessment and feedback. In the meantime, our response to the UCL Education Strategy highlighted a number of areas for improvement including ensuring a wider range of assessment practices, reducing overall assessment load, and anonymous marking. We welcome the commitment in the UCL Education Strategy to implement “the recommendations of a root-and-branch review of assessment at UCL.” This review, will hopefully address longstanding issues with students’ experience of assessment, their knowledge of demonstrating good academic practice, and develop processes for the greater use of electronic assessment. The Strategy hopes to have solved these persistent issues by 2021. However, we would welcome short term measures to address issues in the meantime; for example ensuring assessment criteria are clearly communicated to students, and available well in advance of assessment dates.
3.23 The UCL Education Strategy also outlines a commitment to “new forms of assessment.” As mentioned earlier in this chapter, we would also welcome diversification in assessment practices in addition to the reduction of overall assessment workload. The Strategy also outlines the introduction of a Programme Leader, with ultimate responsibility for reviewing and rationalising assessment across different modules. Again, this is a welcome aim. It is difficult to comment on the effectiveness of these plans at this early stage. While we welcome the decision to highlight assessment and feedback as an area in need of great improvement, we hope UCL listens closely to student opinion throughout the reform process. There are fundamental issues to be addressed, and we look forward to working with UCL to identify and rectify these persistent problems. This will ensure that processes for assessment are valid, reliable and allow every student to demonstrate the extent to which they have achieved intended learning outcomes through the demonstration of good academic practice.
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Chapter Four: Student Development and Achievement
Relevant quality code chapters: B4, B11
Personal & Professional Potential – Student-Led Activity
4.1 The vast majority of opportunities provided to students to develop their personal and professional potential are arranged by UCLU. UCLU offers a wide range of opportunities for students to develop leadership and employability skills. We support thousands of students who are involved in student-led activities and take up leadership positions across our student societies, sports teams, volunteering opportunities and representative roles. These students take on significant responsibilities and develop transferable skills, through formalised training and development sessions. UCLU also provide hundreds of paid employment opportunities for UCL students across our services in many different roles, which gives students direct experience of employment.
Professional Potential – Employability & Careers
4.2 The UCL Careers Service outlines resources for students seeking employment during their time at University and beyond. UCL Careers also offers applications advice to students, which support students with applications for a specific job or internship. One- to-one appointments specifically for PhD students are also offered.38 UCL Advances is UCL’s centre for entrepreneurship and business interaction and provides students in information, resources and support to start or grow their own business.39
4.3 Careers support at departmental level is offered by Careers Consultants who can deliver careers talks, employer-led events and one-to-one appointments during term time.40 However, the system for delivering this localised support is not consistent. The nature and frequency of sessions and workshops delivered varies between departments. Meetings with Careers Consultants can be booked online for students in certain departments, but this is not the case universally. Students in departments where online booking is not available are asked to “speak to a member of staff in your department to find out if/when these are planned.” This lack of consistency is worrying and may place
38 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/specialistsupport/researchers 39 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/advances 40 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/aboutus/team/consultants
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
students who are unable to easily access departmental careers advice at a disadvantage to their peers.
4.4 UCLU and UCL Careers Service run a Skills4Work programme41 in partnership, which includes a series of employer led workshops, panel discussions and one-to-one coaching sessions that help students understand what recruiters are looking for and how to develop and promote their skills more effectively.
4.5 Student satisfaction with the UCL Careers Service stood at approximately 83% in the 2015 Student Barometer summer wave. While not a particularly low figure, the service had the lowest satisfaction score of all Russell Group institutions and also performed poorly compared to scores in the rest of the UK and internationally.
4.6 PRES results show that just 32% of respondents agreed that they had received advice on their career options, while 71% had developed contacts or professional networks during their time at UCL. While seemingly low, both figures are broadly in line with the sector average. Still, this does highlight the potential to improve the provision of careers advice and support for postgraduate research students.
Staff Supporting Development
4.7 Personal Tutors are identified as the key staff member with a role in supporting personal and professional development in all years of study. The fundamental issues with the execution of the personal tutoring system to date have been explored in detail in chapter two, and we have made a recommendation in relation to this. With specific reference to professional development, the UCL Careers Service provide a Personal Tutor Support Pack42 to “inform students how to support students with career related issues”. In reality, this pack simply outlines the services provided by UCL careers and provides a list of “generic careers resources”. This exemplifies the lack of a comprehensive and coordinated approach to the training, induction and ongoing support of personal tutors.
41 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/events/skills4work
42 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/staff/studentsupport/personaltutorpack/personaltutorpack2015
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
4.8 UCL clearly has aspirations about what a personal tutoring system should deliver in this area, but as stated earlier, the delivery of the programme is both inadequate and inconsistent across the University. This results in a lack of provision of personal and professional development support for undergraduate and postgraduate taught students.
4.9 Postgraduate research students are expected to engage with their supervisors to receive guidance on personal and professional development. The use of the Research Student Log43 is now mandatory for postgraduate research students. The log is used to record details relating to a student’s graduate degree programme including supervisory meetings and activities relating to the development of academic, personal and professional skills. Research students and their supervisors are expected to meet at regular intervals to discuss any ongoing training or development needs. Students are also encouraged to participate in courses offered through UCL’s Doctoral Skills Development Programme. However, participation and good use of the research student log is dependent on good engagement from both the student and their supervisor(s). Evidence suggests that the stated processes for postgraduate research student development are not being followed. PRES results indicate that just 70% of students agreed their supervisor helped them to identify their training and development needs as a researcher. This was below the sector average of 74%. Worryingly, just 47% of postgraduate research students had received training to develop their transferable skills (compared to a sector average of 50%) and only 33% had agreed a personal training or development plan, well below the sector average of 45%. We are therefore not confident that robust processes are in place to ensure postgraduate research students are receiving support to achieve their personal and professional potential. The way in which skills training is provided to postgraduate research students has recently changed. General skills training is now delivered centrally, while more specific training is delivered on a departmental/faculty basis. At this stage it is too early to assess the relative merits and demerits of this approach.
Recommendation 11: UCL should implement a more robust system of monitoring personal and professional development for postgraduate research students.
43 https://researchlog.grad.ucl.ac.uk/
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Student Satisfaction with Personal Development
4.10 NSS 2015 results show that 79% of respondents are satisfied with their personal development experience at UCL. This is below the sector average of 83%. Again the sector has experienced an upward trend in this area, while UCL’s satisfaction scores have remained relatively stagnant. This is illustrated in Figure 5.
84
83
82
81
80
79 UCL SECTOR 78
77
76
75
74 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Figure 6: NSS Student Satisfaction with Personal Development
4.11 Again in this area, there is a large degree of variability in personal development satisfaction across faculties reaching a high of 92% in the Faculty of Medical Sciences and a low of 75% in the Faculty of Mathematical & Physical Sciences. Variability also exists between departments in the same faculty. In the Faculty of Social & Historical Sciences for example, 86% of students in the History of Art department were satisfied with personal development provision, compared to just 54% of students in the Geography department.
4.12 75% of students agreed that their programme had helped them to present themselves with confidence, 81% that their communication skills had improved and 80% agreed that they felt confident in tackling unfamiliar problems as a result of their programme.
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Personal & Professional Development Resources
4.13 UCL’s personal and professional development (PPD) webpages list a number of resources that are aimed at helping students improve their skills and assist with PPD planning.44 The outline of these webpages and the information provided on the homepage is particularly unclear. A headline explains that the resources listed will support personal and professional development, however no further narrative is offered. A follow-on link to PPD development guidance webpages is equally confusing45.
4.14 A UCL Personal & Professional Development System, accessed through the student information system Portico, allows a student to “plan and record [their] development in a systematic way”.46 The system itself is difficult to use, and is accompanied by an extensive set of technical instructions. Uptake of the system is low amongst students.
4.15 A PPD framework is also provided47 offering web-based resources for four areas of self-development: academic, self-management, communicating, and working with others. The vast majority of these resources are hosted on third-party sites and the information provided is not specific to UCL students.
4.16 MyPortfolio48, also facilitated by an external provider, is a personal learning platform that allows staff and students at UCL to build CVs, share blogs and network online. Again, uptake for MyPortfolio is low amongst students.
4.17 There is no systematic, proactive approach to personal and professional development at UCL, and this is evidenced in the online webpages and resources provided. The provision and promotion of personal and professional development resources at UCL is haphazard at best. There is a reliance on externally facilitated websites that often serve similar functions. Resources provided through the website are not tailored to UCL students and for the most part take the form of generalist
44 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/resources 45 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/process 46 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/resources/student-guide-ppd 47 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/resources/framework 48 https://myportfolio.ucl.ac.uk/
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
guides. Communication regarding the purpose of personal development planning and accessible guidance for the use of resources is also non-existent.
Recommendation 12: UCL should take proactive steps to communicate the importance of Personal and Professional Development to students, provide tailored, up-to-date and accessible PPD resources and integrate PPD effectively to the Personal Tutoring System.
Supporting Transition & Progression
4.18 The UCL Transition Programme49 supports new first-year students arriving at the University, and helps them to settle in quickly so that they can fulfil their potential. Details of the academic assistance provided by Transition mentors were outlined in Chapter Three. However, Transition mentors provide wider assistance in helping students settle in at UCL and provide guidance on broader issues such as finances and budgeting. The Transition Programme operates well in this regard, catering for every student and providing vital assistance to ensure students start life at UCL in the right way. The last Transition Programme evaluation administered in 2013/14 found that 92% of almost one thousand respondents would recommend the scheme to future first years. We hope UCL continues this provision to aid the transition of new students into the future.
4.19 In terms of progression, we welcome the recent decision to pilot late summer resits in a small number of faculties during the 2015/16 academic year. UCL practice of having students wait a full year before taking resits was both unusual and detrimental to the experience of individual students. We also welcome the aim to roll-out late summer resits across all taught programmes in the 2016/17 academic year.
Academic Potential - Skills Development
4.20 A coherent approach to the provision of academic skills development resources is lacking at UCL. As outlined in the previous chapter, much of the support offered to allow students to demonstrate good academic practice is offered on a departmental basis with varying methods and varying rates of frequency. SELCS Writing Labs, mentioned in chapter two, are a key example of good practice in a particular area. However, all students should be provided with equal levels of academic skills support. In terms of
49 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/transition
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
enhancing and improving academic skills, little support is provided centrally. UCL recently disestablished services offered by the Royal Literary Fund Fellows50. The RLF Fellows were professional authors, and the principal aim of their work at UCL was to foster good writing practices across all disciplines, helping all students to write clearly and effectively. Now many students who are not provided with similar support by their departments are left without resources to support their academic development.
4.21 UCLU offers the Writing & Language Support Programme (WALS) for international students studying at UCL51. The WALS programme is a strong example of how academic-skills enhancement initiatives can be of great benefit to students. The aim of this peer tutor scheme is to provide assistance to non-native English speakers with their academic writing and speaking. The WALS scheme runs several activities including lessons, workshops, bookable one-to-one sessions and “coffee and conversation” sessions. The WALS programme has proved popular with 83% of one-to-one appointments booked by students, weekly coffee and conversation sessions attracting between 7-12 attendees and workshops attracting approximately 20 attendees. In a WALS evaluation survey, 100% respondents found the one-to-one tutorials useful,
4.22 Evidence from the WALS programme and the disestablishment of the Royal Literary Fund Fellows strengthens the call made in recommendation ten for greater support of academic skills development at the University. This position is supported through results of the UCLU 2015 Language Support Survey, with respondents indicating a strong desire for assistance in structuring essays, grammar for writing, referencing and the use of academic language.
4.23 On a positive note, UCL delivers the successful Global Citizenship Programme52, a two week programme that offers students the opportunity to put their studies in a global context and learn new skills.
Student Development & Achievement Summary
4.24 Overall we believe that UCL needs to take a more proactive approach to student development and achievement. The issues with the Personal Tutoring system that
50 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/history/undergraduate/current-undergraduates/academic-support/royal_literary 51 http://uclu.org/wals 52 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/global-citizenship/programme
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
in turn affect the adequate provision of academic support also extend to personal and professional development (PPD) support. Again, we would like to see the persistent issues with personal tutoring resolved in an effective manner. A more active role in helping postgraduate research students to reach their personal and professional potential would also be welcomed. A more coherent approach to the provision of PPD information, guidance, and resources is required so that students can understand the benefits and make use of means available to them. We recognise the strong contribution of the UCL Transition Programme in supporting students during their first few weeks at University, and welcome steps to support students to progress through their studies in a fair manner. Finally, we believe UCL should prioritise improvements in the provision of academic skills development activities, as this is clearly an area that has been neglected to date.
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Conclusion
UCL remains one of the best Universities in the world, a hub of educational and research excellence. Unfortunately there are instances where education provision falls short of expected standards and opportunities to enhance learning opportunities are sometimes not taken.
We have therefore made a number of recommendations that we believe will both rectify existing issues and improve the student experience. A summary of our recommendations can be found at the end of this document. We believe that acting on these recommendations will address persistent issues and enhance the educational experience of students through student engagement, learning and teaching, assessment and feedback, and student development and achievement. A common theme amongst the issues raised in this submission is an inconsistency with practices across departments and faculty, permeating every area of the student experience. While individuality of departments is vital, UCL must ensure that every student benefits from the same level of support as their peers throughout their academic experience.
It is important to state that UCLU values its relationship with UCL, and can look back with pride on the wide variety of collaborative projects delivered successfully over the past number of years. We appreciate an open and constructive dialogue towards the resolution of issues, and appreciate that many of the issues raised in this submission have been acknowledged by UCL, as evidenced in the Self-Evaluation Document. Delivery of an excellent educational experience for all students starts with engaging them as partners in their own learning. We look forward to building on already strong foundations towards an increasingly meaningful partnership and towards the delivery of a world-class academic journey for students.
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Summary of Recommendations
Student Engagement
Recommendation 1: UCL should enhance student engagement with estates issues in the context of limited space and ongoing capital projects by including student representation on the Learning Spaces Project Board and the Estates Management Committee.
Recommendation 2: UCL should adopt the goals set out in the UCLU response to the UCL Education Strategy and subsequently work in partnership with UCLU to ensure students are engaged as partners in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience.
Recommendation 3: UCL should take necessary steps to implement a coordinated and wide-reaching communications strategy that informs students when changes have been made as a result of student feedback.
Learning & Teaching
Recommendation 4: UCL should take steps to secure cross-University participation and alignment with teaching enhancement activities like UCL Arena.
Recommendation 5: UCL should invest in ensuring IT provision is of a desirable service level for staff and students and ensure adequate funding is in place to support technology-based projects outlined in the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021.
Recommendation 6: UCL should provide guidance regarding the minimum level of information required in programme handbooks and work to achieve departmental alignment with this guidance.
Recommendation 7: UCL should take greater steps to improve the personal tutoring system, for example through securing increased commitment from personal tutors, and through the provision of appropriate training and support throughout the year.
Recommendation 8: In embarking upon initiatives on overseas campuses and establishing collaborative provision programmes, UCL should take steps to ensure students receive the same level of support as those studying on the main UCL campus.
Student Submission to the Higher Education Review 2016
Assessment & Feedback
Recommendation 9: UCL, in partnership with UCLU, should take major steps to improve assessment and feedback processes at the University, using NSS satisfaction scores as a measure of success.
Recommendation 10: UCL should offer greater support to students to help demonstrate good academic practice in assessment. This support should include easily accessible resources, and a consistent level of staff support through workshops.
Student Development & Achievement
Recommendation 11: UCL should implement a more robust system of monitoring personal and professional development for postgraduate research students.
Recommendation 12: UCL should take proactive steps to communicate the importance of Personal Professional Development to students, provide tailored, up-to-date and accessible PPD resources and integrate PPD effectively to the Personal Tutoring System.