Visiting Associateship Application Notes

Student Practices and Experiences of Learning resources and Spaces at Newcastle University

Research Findings

CONFIDENTIAL

Centre for Knowledge, Innovation, Technology and Enterprise (KITE) http://www.ncl.ac.uk/ kite Newcastle University, Citywall, Citygate, St. James Boulevard NE1 4JH

April 2010

Sarah Walsh: [email protected] Paul Richter : [email protected] Rob Wilson: [email protected]

of 85 Acknowledgements

Firstly, we would like to say thank you to all the focus group participants – for taking the time out to attend and for your openness and honesty.

We would also like to thank the various members of staff in different schools who helped with recruiting student participants – this once again was invaluable and we genuinely appreciate all your help and advice in arranging the focus groups.

Thanks also to the Student Opinion Steering Group members – particularly Wayne Connolly and Wendy Love who have been very supportive and encouraging. This has once again been an extremely enjoyable piece of research to carry out. On a personal note, I (Sarah) would like to thank Wendy for your advice and support which was greatly appreciated.

Thanks also to those members of staff within KITE, particularly Amanda Lane.

If you have any comments or would like further information, please do not hesitate to contact a member of the KITE team:

Sarah Walsh: [email protected] Paul Richter: [email protected]

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 2 Contents – Structure of the Report

Acknowledgements...... 2 Contents – Structure of the Report...... 3 Summary of Key Findings...... 4 Project Background...... 7 Structure of Key Findings...... 13 Observational data gathering...... 15 Student Suggestions and Recommendations...... 35 Key insights from researchers’ perspective...... 38 Avenues for further investigation...... 41 References...... 43 Appendix 1 Focus Group Summaries...... 44

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 3 Summary of Key Findings

This report sets out the findings from a study of the practices and experiences of Newcastle University’s learning spaces and resources from the perspective of stage 2 undergraduates studying a range of subjects. The research was commissioned by QuILT on behalf of the Student Opinion Steering Group (SOSG) and undertaken by researchers from Newcastle University’s Centre for Knowledge, Innovation, Techno- logy and Enterprise (KITE) located in the Business School.

The overall aim of the study was to provide the University with valuable insights into the attitudes and perspectives of Newcastle University’s undergraduate students regarding their experience of the institution’s learning resources. This is being done in the context of a range of research activities aiming to better understand the student experience, including the National Student Survey (NSS), internal survey techniques, and, more recently, focus group-based research. The starting place for this study was a cluster of variables from the National Student Survey (NSS) relating to student attitudes to learning resources (Q16, 17, 18). The 2009 results showed a slight decline in mean satisfaction scores from 4.3 in 2008 to 4.2 in 2009. In relations to Q17 specifically, the 2009 NSS results showed a decline from 90% to 88%. Whilst this score is still relatively high, it nevertheless represented the largest decline in the 2009 results. The NSS statistics provide a useful overview of student attitudes but provide little in the way of an explanation of why students may feel dissatisfied. This study, therefore, sought to provide a deeper understanding of how students use, feel about the University’s learning resources and spaces as well as why they make use of particular resources and why they hold the opinions that they do. The study was conducted over a four month period between December 2009 and March 2010 and involved conducting eight focus groups with stage 2 undergraduate students studying a range of subjects across the three faculties. The study also involved several periods of observational data-gathering.

Overall, there appeared to be a fairly high level of satisfaction with resources among the student body (even from those who enjoyed few school specific resources). The level and quality of school-specific resources available to different sets of students vary widely. There is a sense by which students quickly develop expectations about resource levels. Hence, students in those schools with relatively poor resources are not necessarily the most dissatisfied and in some cases have adapted to their situation. At the same time, students who have a relatively high level of resources at their disposal still articulated dissatisfaction with certain aspects of resourcing.

Our study found that general learning resources are low on many students’ list of priorities when they are finding a place to study. However, specialist school resources (such as clinics, laboratories, specialist equipment and software) can be an influential factor when choosing a university. When students have actually started their degree programme, the availability and quality of (general) resources/spaces does make a difference to the overall student experience, once students come to realise how integral they are to their learning journey. At the same time, it appears that other factors (for example, the quality of relations between students and staff, the degree of integration between students on the same degree programme, the existence of mechanisms through which students can express their voice, being in receipt of a ‘sufficient’ number of contact hours, or the existence of a departmental ‘home’) are of equal if not more importance in determining overall levels of satisfaction. Of course,

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 4 the issue of space and resource provision is intimately related to a number of these themes.

During the course of this study, focus group participants raised several issues about resources (as detailed in the table below) and offered many suggestions about how to improve the current situation.

Table 1: Summary of Key Findings from the Focus Groups

Summary of Key Findings from the Focus Groups

 Choice and reasoning - there appears to be a key difference in the way students think about learning resources and spaces – from ‘general’ resources such as library and IT facilities which are assumed to be of a good standard (prior to coming to university) to more ‘specialist school specific’ resources which did appear to be an influencing factor towards choice of institution.

 Choice of resources seemed to depend on the availability of school based resources – if there were none available, the Robinson Library was in many cases the default location for accessing a range of resources.

 There is a difference in the need for and use of resources between subjects, for example, for some the emphasis is on group work space, for others, the main resource may be specialist software.

 The Robinson Library is a very popular space, particularly over exam periods. Frustrations related to other students securing resources (such as the private study rooms or locking PCs). All groups resoundingly asked that the Robinson Library be open 24 hours, particularly during busy exam periods.

 IT resources are a central concern for most students. Frustrations include the over-use of Face- book by peers, the slow speed of working with RAS, and problems with wireless connection during ‘busy’ periods in the Robinson Library, but there was also a lot of praise for Blackboard and Recap services and a strong desire to see these facilities used more.

 The notion of ‘peer interaction’ was raised as a mechanism of learning support – two groups appreciated having spaces (e.g. common rooms, IT cluster) which the ‘seniors’ also used as they could ask them for help and advice. Interestingly, another group which did not have any such space to interact with those in different years raised this issue and felt it would be useful for promoting learning and receiving advice from others.

 A lack of awareness of resources and spaces available around campus (and how to use some of them) was one of the key points raised within all 8 focus groups.

 Students voiced frustration at an apparent lack of awareness-raising of different kinds of learning spaces on the part of the University and questioned why they were not informed about the different spaces and resources.

 Many felt there was ambiguity over spaces which was not helped by confusing labelling in certain cases.

 There was a reticence to ‘explore’ - many felt they were not ‘allowed’ into certain spaces. Some felt this was a legacy from their ‘school’ days where there were restrictions in the use of different spaces.

 Participants often compared their university experience with others on different courses or at dif-

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 5 ferent institutions.

 Assumed level of ‘good’ resources – many participants stated that as Newcastle had a reputation of being a ‘good’ University, they presumed there would be a correspondingly good level of resources. Resources appear to become more of an issue as students’ progress through their studies.

 The use of learning resources and spaces appears to differ from 1st to 2nd year. This can largely be explained by a change in the type of accommodation (from Halls of Residence to private) and students staying on campus more in 2nd year to do work during breaks.

 The notion of ’value for money’ was raised by several groups in connection with their attitude towards resources – this applied to those who felt they were ‘lucky’ with the level and quality of resources available to them as well as those who wanted more resources and facilities including an increase in contact hours with teaching staff.

 Relationship with staff was also a factor affecting satisfaction with resources (and value for money). Even those who felt they were well resourced were dissatisfied with some of the relationships they had with staff due to a feeling of staff valuing research more than teaching. One group with seemingly no school specific facilities praised staff and this appeared to help raise overall satisfaction with their learning experience.

 Overall participants appeared to value school based facilities rather than the more centralised options.

Table 2: Summary of Key Observational Findings

Summary of Key Observational Findings

 Distinctiveness of schools - some schools appear considerably more distinctive than others in terms of the physical environment, with some that have a strong ‘brand’ and image, and others that are largely anonymous environments, displaying little to suggest that the space relates to a specific school.

 There is a clear disparity of resources and student spaces between schools, with some having their own library, a local IT cluster, student common room and specialist resources, compared to those lacking any of these spaces/resources.

 There is an incredibly wide variety of social spaces across schools (e.g. from well-used and apparently high quality student spaces available to certain subject areas to a total absence of space for others). There is also a marked disparity between schools even within the same building, reflected by the use of furnishings and well populated spaces in one department and a distinct lack of students and seemingly less well maintained décor and surroundings in others. The more popular social spaces tended to have a combination of soft furnishings, areas with tables/chairs for studying, notice boards, vending machines, and PCs.

 Usage of learning spaces is variable, depending on the time of year, and depending on the space. The busiest period observed was that just prior to the end of Semester 1 exams. However, while the Robinson Library’s spaces were extremely popular at this time, other spaces (e.g. the Bedson PC cluster) were only approximately 60% full. It is noteworthy that some of these findings seem not to correspond directly with a lot of the feedback provided by focus group participants who, on the whole, described the PC clusters and the Robinson Library spaces in particular as completely full a lot of the time, especially during exam periods. Though many students did admit that they would often not even bother to venture to Robinson Library if they believed it was going to be busy.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 6 S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 7 Project Background

Learning Spaces and Resources at Newcastle University

Background

The research was commissioned by QuILT on behalf of the Student Opinion Steering Group (SOSG) and undertaken by researchers from Newcastle University, Centre for Knowledge, Innovation, Technology and Enterprise (KITE).

The overall aim of the study was to provide the University with valuable insights into the attitudes and perspectives of Newcastle University’s undergraduate students regarding their experience of the institution’s learning resources. This is being done in the context of a range of research activities aiming to better understand the student experience, including the National Student Survey (NSS), internal survey techniques, and, more recently, focus group-based research. The study aimed to drill down into the specific issue of the University learning environment following recent survey results and broad insights into the drivers of student satisfaction gained during the focus group exercise conducted by KITE on behalf of QuILT in 2009 (Walsh et al, 2009).

Purpose of the Research

The main objectives of the research were:

 To design and facilitate approximately 8 focus groups  To conduct a series of observations around campus to complement focus group data gathering approach  Explore student experiences, perceptions and expectations concerning Newcastle University’s learning resources/environment  Provide recommendations and potential action points to the University  Produce a report which can be disseminated to Schools and Services by the Stu- dent Opinion Steering Group via QuILT.

Rationale – Context for understanding the student experience at Newcastle University

At a time when University management are faced with the challenge of meeting rising student expectations and simultaneously achieving cost-savings where possible, it is important that a greater understanding of the student experience is achieved. One dimension of this experience relates to students’ use of and attitudes towards learning resources and spaces. As a recent JISC-sponsored study concluded, “organisations all face pressure to deliver higher standards of education, to greater numbers of students, with tight financial restrictions, but still need to provide facilities that will attract students in a competitive market.” (University of Birmingham, 2005)

One important way in which universities are getting closer to their students is via the NSS and one of the areas of student experience surveyed by this process concerns S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 8 ‘learning resources’. However, the statements within this section of the survey are such that the findings are of limited value to institutions interested in understanding students’ views. The statements are:

Q16. The library resources and services are good enough for my needs

Q17. I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to

Q18. I have been able to access specialised equipment, facilities or rooms when I needed to

Responses to statement 16 provide a very broad comment on the quality of library resources in relation to individual need. Those relating to statement 17 say something about attitudes towards access to ‘general IT resources’ (but nothing about their quality or any other dimension of experience). And statement 18 is somewhat ambiguous in seeking views on access to certain ‘specialised’ resources, however they may be interpreted.

The 2009 NSS results for Newcastle University saw the largest decline for Q17 which reduced from 90% to 88%. In a report for the University Teaching and Learning Committee (17-09-09), Steve Williams, the Director of Information Systems and Ser- vices, provided some useful reflections and analysis on ‘The 2009 NSS and the Uni- versity’s IT provision for Students’, an excerpt of which is paraphrased below.

Whilst the overall score for Q17 is still high, the decline is nevertheless perceived as troubling particularly as this is the largest fall in the 2009 results. Due to the way the question is worded, however, it is difficult to find out the reasons behind any dissatisfaction. For example, do students perceive:

 the IT kit provided is poor.  the IT kit is OK but the rooms are poor.  the facilities provided overall are OK but they are unable to get onto a machine where they want to do so, because….

o they are inflexible about location. o they don't know where all the facilities are. o they perceive that all of the clusters are full.

 They think that the facilities provided overall are OK but can't get access because they want to use their own kit and access wirelessly.

Supplementary to the rather limited understanding of students’ attitudes in this area, the focus group exercise conducted by KITE in 2008-2009 (Walsh et al, 2009) suggested that there are mixed feelings among undergraduates as to the quality of the University’s learning resources. For example, students from certain schools believed Robinson Library to be well-resourced in respect of their discipline, while students studying other programmes believed the opposite to be true. At the same time, some disciplines were impressed by the computing resources they had access to; others expressed a desire for more resources and implied that resource location was an important factor in determining levels of satisfaction. The focus group data also suggested that learning resources are one of a range of factors being viewed in ‘value-for- S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 9 money’ terms and that students are increasingly comparing their experiences of them with peers studying other programmes in this institution and elsewhere.

This study opened up the opportunity to obtain a richer understanding of these and related issues and the findings offer clarification on many of them.

Research Methods

The overall purpose of the research was to examine participants’ attitudes and perceptions about learning spaces and resources at Newcastle University; therefore a qualitative approach was proposed. Unlike survey-based approaches, the purpose was not to produce statistically representative findings but focus on the range of experiences and perceptions of students and to gain a more nuanced understanding of why students hold particular opinions and behave in particular ways. As such, the findings of this study usefully supplement other data-gathering approaches.

Focus groups

The focus group was the main method employed to deliver these outcomes. Focus group research is an established technique with a strong tradition in the Social Sci- ences. The groups were purposively selected and each group discussion lasted approximately 1-1½ hours. We aimed to recruit between 8-10 participants for each group, which we achieved for most subject areas (see Table 3 below for full details).

Focus group selection and rationale

There are various ways in which a suitable sample for this study could be selected. Given that strict statistical representativeness was not the desired outcome in this type of research, a non-probability sampling approach such as purposive sampling was deemed appropriate. As directed by the study’s sponsors, the sample was drawn from undergraduates in their second year of study. Although it is possible that this cohort may have different attitudes towards the issues being explored than students in their first or final year of their undergraduate studies or those studying at postgraduate level, it was believed that second-years would have had enough experience to provide a rich set of data of relevance to the undergraduate population more broadly. In terms of which Stage 2 students to approach, we were guided by the 2009 NSS results, specifically the results from the 3 survey questions on ‘learning resources’ (questions 16, 17, 18) referred to earlier. Each of the questions represents different aspects of learning resources and spaces, therefore subjects were identified in terms of their average performance across the three variables. In order to en- counter an array of student experiences, subject areas were selected across the entire range of achievement (high, mid, and low) in relation to the 3 variables and span- ning each of the three University faculties as illustrated in the table below:

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 10 Table 3: Subjects selected for Focus Group Research

Subject (Faculty) Average score No of Group (NSS, 2009)* Members

Speech and Language Sciences (HaSS) 4.6 6 Marine Engineering & Marine Technology (SAgE) 4.6 9

Classics (HaSS) 4.2 5 SAgE Joint Honours Programme (SAgE) 4.2 6 Psychology (Medical Sciences) 4.2 10

Philosophical Studies (SAgE) 4.0 9 School of English Literature and Language 3.9 6 (HaSS) Architecture (HaSS) 3.5 10

* NSS scores and statistics are available in the public domain

NOTE: The Medical Sciences faculty is slightly under-represented due to there being fewer Medical Sciences subject areas to choose from in the first place and because we were conscious of avoiding selecting the same subjects as those researched in last year’s ‘student satisfaction’ exploration.

Process of recruiting focus group participants

Recruitment processes varied between subjects. Initially, the Heads of School of the 8 subject areas chosen were contacted to seek permission for the research team to approach staff and students. Generally a lecturer/module leader was then suggested by the Head of School and approached by the researchers. Students’ timetables were examined to see where there may be appropriate gaps to conduct a focus group and a date and venue was then decided upon. A flyer was produced by the researchers providing more information about the focus groups and details of date, time and venue. All participants were offered £20 as a ‘thank you’ for their time in attending the focus group. Researchers offered to go to lectures to hand out the flyer and explain about the study. However, this only happened in one case (which worked well) as lecturers tended to do this themselves and the personal approach and en- couragement appeared to work well. The lecturer then presented the flyer to students in stage 2 lectures or seminars, and those who were interested were asked to contact the research team directly.

Reflecting on the recruitment process as a whole, school contacts were found to be very supportive. The involvement of an academic member of staff, especially one who had the opportunity to address students directly (i.e. in a classroom situation), tended to yield the best results. It was often useful to follow up face to face interaction with an e-mail to remind students of the study and to make it easier for them to respond. A suitable number of participants were recruited very easily in some cases and we found that we had to turn volunteers away in a couple of cases where we had reached the maximum of 10 students per group. In others, we experienced more difficulty, in which cases a series of e-mail reminders were required to achieve appropriate numbers. In one case, the group had to be rearranged due to very low attend- S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 11 ance on the day of the first attempt to carry out a focus group. Overall, however, participant recruitment was achieved without too many difficulties, student volunteers were very willing to discuss their experiences openly, and the focus groups were carried out successfully.

Participants attending each of the focus groups were sent a summary of the key issues arising from their focus group and invited to comment as appropriate. This process acted as a participant verification check and served to ‘close the feedback loop’. These summaries are appended at the end of this document [Appendix 1]. Focus group discussion guide

The focus groups aimed to explore student experiences of the institution’s learning resources. Following initial discussions with QuILT and key stakeholders from the University’s library and information systems services it was clear that the study ought to be about more than students’ views of the library and IT facilities. Rather, it should seek to establish a deeper understanding of how students use, feel about, and understand the University’s learning resources as part of the broader information and learning environment. The focus groups were therefore designed to explore a wide set of issues:

 students’ opinions of, and awareness of, existing learning/information resources  how important factors such as location of these services are  how students currently use learning/information facilities and why they use them in these ways  whether/how students’ behaviour changes according to, for example, year of study, time of year, discipline  how important these services are to students’ broader experience and sense of overall satisfaction (i.e. the extent to which students value learning resources and which resources they value)  students’ expectations of these services and the role they played in students’ choice of university (i.e. perceptions of what constitutes adequate/inadequate resources)  how important support in the use of resources is to students  whether/how students currently express an opinion about (and/or complain about) resources and spaces

Observations

In addition to the core focus group element of the study, a period of observational research was undertaken. This element comprised a series of observation periods (approx 30 mins-1 hour in length) conducted at different times of the day and academic calendar (e.g. before/during/after the semester 1 exam/assessment period). The observation took place in a range of University spaces across campus in a repeated fashion in order to build up a picture of student movements and behaviour. The observational activity was non-intrusive – it did not involve direct contact with student users – and was conducted in accordance with the University's ethical approval process.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 12 The primary aim of this activity was to generate useful data on, for example, the level of resource usage; the nature and consistency of that usage; the type of activities engaged in; the degree and nature of user interaction; the existence of conflict over usage; the character of the student mood and general atmosphere in the space; the geography of the space. This approach offered a naturalistic source of data to complement the focus group data-gathering process. It provided insights that usefully shaped the design of the focus group discussion guide and proved invaluable to the research team in allowing them the opportunity to see at first hand many of the spaces and resources that the focus group participants discussed. This experience frequently allowed the researchers to prompt focus group participants about spaces that had not been mentioned and in some cases probe and challenge participants if the researchers’ experience of a space/resource conflicted with that of the student.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 13 Structure of Key Findings

The primary data-gathering method employed in this study was a series of focus groups and as such the findings section centres on exploring these data. The purpose of the focus groups was to encourage students to raise and discuss issues which were pertinent to them regarding learning spaces and resources. As such, the discussion guide for the focus groups was designed with fairly broad and open questions and which were grouped under three main themes. The table below sets out these theme headings and the intention behind each section.

Table 4: Organisation of focus group findings within the report

Theme Heading Explanation

This section aimed to explore what resources Current Use of Learning Resources and students currently use, when, how often, and Spaces why. It also looks at students’ attitudes towards existing resources/spaces.

This section focused on how students found out Knowledge and Communication of Learn- about particular resources/spaces and explored ing Resources & Spaces levels of awareness of the range of resources that exist on campus.

This section looked to explore students’ expectations - including a discussion about any expectations students had related to resources prior to Contextual Issues and Expectations coming to university and whether this influenced their choice of institution. This section also included whether/how students’ behaviour may change according to, for example, year of study, time of year, discipline and so on.

Under each of the above theme headings, the findings section is structured to provide:

 A table highlighting the key points  Expanded notes of key points  Illustrative quotes from focus groups

The verbatim quotes are presented in shaded boxes.

This report therefore amalgamates the key findings from all eight focus groups conducted. Each focus group raised specific issues relevant to that particular subject. However, the findings section focuses on the emerging patterns and themes and any areas of contradiction from across the groups. We provide a lot of detailed points in

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 14 this section and the incorporation of illustrative quotes enables the reader to make their own interpretations of what was said by participants. At the end of the findings section we have summarised some of the students’ ‘recommendations’ for how the University could improve their experience of its learning resources and spaces. Fur- ther, the research team briefly set out their own inferences from the data in a separate section – ‘Key insights from researchers’ perspective’.

Before the main themed part of this findings section, we set out a brief summary of the key insights generated from the observational data-gathering aspect of the study which serves to set the scene through the researchers’ eyes before the students’ direct experiences are addressed.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 15 Observational data gathering

Reflections on observation periods

In addition to the focus group data-gathering activity, a series of observation periods were undertaken at different times of the day/week during January, February and March 2010. This encompassed the period of time before, during, and after the semester 1 exams/assessments. Observations took place in a range of University spaces. These included ‘universal’ spaces such as PC clusters; library-based learning spaces across the three University libraries; the Learning Zone; and the Student Union building. We were also interested to observe usage of some of the newly refurbished PC clusters (Fell & Pass; Lawn & Naiad, Bedson 24 hour) which incorporate a more group-oriented design. At the same time, we observed many of the spaces located within the eight schools selected to participate in focus groups. A full list of spaces observed is provided in the table below.

Table 5: Spaces Observed

Locations observed Specific spaces within locations (apart from general public areas) Architecture Building Kofi Bar Armstrong Building School of Historical Studies: Classics Library School of Marine Science and Technology: Student common room School of Marine Science and Technology: PC cluster Bedson Building PC cluster Fine Art Building King George VI Lawn & Naiad PC cluster Resource Centre Student common rooms x 2 King’s Gate Levels 1 & 2 King’s Road Centre The Learning Zone Bistro Law School Building Law Library Medical School Building Walton Library Fell & Pass PC cluster Student common room Old Library Building PC cluster Percy Building School of English UG student common room Ridley 1 Building Robinson Library  Level 1: YourSpace; Hope PC cluster  Level 2: OpenSpace; The Learning Lounge; Café; Main PC cluster  Levels 3 & 4: Open study areas; Group meeting rooms; Open access study rooms Student Union

The aim of the observational activity was to generate useful data along a number of dimensions (including the level of resource usage; the nature and consistency of that usage; the type of activities engaged in; the degree and nature of user interaction;

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 16 the existence of conflict over usage; the character of the student mood and general atmosphere in the space; and the geography of the space).

This approach offered a naturalistic source of data to complement the focus group data-gathering process and provided insights that usefully shaped the focus group discussion guides. While the observations made by the research team have influenced much of the commentary in this report, there are a number of specific insights generated by this element of the study worth articulating here.

 We observed that the usage of learning spaces is variable, depending on the time of year, and depending on the space. The busiest period observed was that just prior to the end of Semester 1 exams. Students occupied many learning spaces around campus, including The Learning Zone (which we found to be close to empty on a number of other occasions). The Robinson Library was particularly popular during this period. Apart from the main PC cluster (Level 2), which very often appeared close to capacity regardless of the time of year, most of the librar- y’s learning areas were busy, including the tables/chairs set out in the thorough- fares on Level 2. The group meeting rooms (Levels 3 and 4) looked to be booked out solidly during this period, including on weekends. Although busy, there were some spaces in YourSpace and in the Hope PC cluster (Level 1). Most interestingly, perhaps, while the Robinson Library’s spaces were extremely popular at this time, the Bedson PC cluster was only approximately 60% full.

During the exam period itself, there were noticeably less students in some campus spaces (observation took place during the middle of the day so it is likely that many students would have been sitting exams). For example, the Bedson PC cluster was not at all busy, the Lawn & Naiad (King George VI) cluster was hardly being used, and neither was The Learning Zone. However, the Robinson Library remained very popular during this period – including OpenSpace, the thorough- fare spaces, The Learning Lounge, YourSpace (approx. 90% full), the group meeting rooms, and the open study areas on levels 3 and 4 (approx. 60-70% full). During other observation periods (early and late February; early March), the level of usage of the Robinson Library spaces referred to remained mid to high. The only period when this venue was noticeably less busy was in the week prior to the Christmas holiday. During February and March, some of the other learning spaces were visibly less popular than the Robinson Library; these include the Old Library PC cluster and the Bedson PC cluster.

It is noteworthy that some of these findings seem not to correspond directly with a lot of the feedback provided by focus group participants who, on the whole, described the PC clusters and the Robinson Library spaces in particular as completely full a lot of the time, especially during exam periods. Though many students did admit that they would often not even bother to venture to Robinson Lib- rary if they believed it was going to be busy.

 A reflection of the very high demand for PC resources: The King's Gate building was visited on a number of occasions during the period of the study. Bearing in mind that this is a relatively new space, it was noticeable that, as time went on, the PCs sited on the first floor (there are approximately 20 PCS) became increasingly well-used. Some students were obviously working on assignments; others were using it for more social reasons. They sometimes worked in pairs, were often drinking (even eating on occasion); it was as if they had discovered PC resources (perhaps during a routine visit to the Finance service) that were not very S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 17 well known and where they could seemingly spend as much time as they wanted in a relatively quiet environment. Focus group discussions suggested that many students had a very weak idea what this building was for and were not regular users.

 There is an incredibly wide variety of social spaces across schools (e.g. from well-used and apparently high quality student spaces available to certain subject areas to a total absence of space for others). There is also a marked disparity between schools even within the same building, reflected by the use of furnishings and well populated spaces in one department and a distinct lack of students and seemingly less well maintained décor and surroundings in others. The more popular social spaces tended to have a combination of soft furnishings, areas with tables/chairs for studying, notice boards, vending machines, and PCs.

 Distinctiveness of schools - some schools appear considerably more distinctive than others in terms of the physical environment, with some that have a strong ‘brand’ and image, and others that are largely anonymous environments, displaying little to suggest that the space relates to a specific school

 There is a clear disparity of resources and student spaces between schools, with some having their own library, a local IT cluster, student common room and specialist resources, compared to those lacking any of these spaces/resources.

 Eating/drinking spaces (i.e. cafes, restaurants etc.) appeared not to be obviously popular spaces for doing group-work during the observation periods undertaken. However, one focus group did say that they often used the Global Café space (Student Union) to work in study groups.

 Students appeared to be broadly respectful of other users in the various learning spaces observed. While many spaces have, albeit often very discreet, notices outlining acceptable behaviour, some of these rules were regularly disregarded. So, drinking (and often eating of snacks) of uncovered drinks was commonplace in almost every space around campus, as was mobile phone use (texting, quiet chatting). Multi-tasking was common in many spaces – students using a laptop, mobile phone, with open books, wearing headphones, and drinking/eating. The type of behaviour and the level of noise did differ between spaces, though not a great deal. The quietest areas were certain pockets of Levels 3 and 4 (Robinson Library) with a high-density of carrels, and the noisiest area was probably YourSpace, but there tended to be low-level noise in most open areas. Signific- antly, though, we did not observe very high noise levels in any area, neither did we observe any obvious conflict between users. That is not to say that some users were not annoyed at their peers’ behaviour during these observation periods. As the focus group discussions revealed, on the whole students tend to avoid articulating their frustrations towards other users.

 There is variability in terms of the structuring of learning spaces. This appeared to be most apparent in the various libraries. So the Robinson Library, for example, seems to be building a degree of flexibility into the design of some of its new learning spaces (e.g. in the same space, catering for individual, small, and larger group working; providing PC-supported group working areas and simply desk space; offering desks with chairs and sofa seating). At the same time, the Walton and Law libraries have a more structured approach to space. Here, PC resources

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 18 tend to be organised in separate spaces from general work areas and there is more of a tendency to clearly designate the purpose of particular spaces (e.g. Postgraduate areas in the Law Library or the ‘silent’ study space in the Walton Library).

There appears to be a rather difficult choice for University management to make in respect of the degree to which activities are prescribed and the level of flexibility appropriate to a given space. The focus group data were somewhat ambiguous on this. On the one hand, many students complained about the ‘inappropri- ate’ behaviour of other users (e.g. being noisy when they were trying to carry out focussed work, or using ‘group-oriented’ resources on their own). On the other hand, many students said they really liked spaces that offer a degree of flexibility (like YourSpace) and where they can work formally or informally with friends. In- deed, there was enthusiasm for more of this type of space at a school level. Of course, as we found from the focus groups, some students prefer to work in environments where there is low-level noise/activity, while others can only study in very quiet spaces. On balance, there appear to be fewer spaces for the latter group. That is probably why they tend to go home if they are unable to find a suitable space on campus.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 19 Findings: Theme I Current Use of Learning Resources and Spaces

This section aims to deepen understanding about what learning spaces and resources students tend to use, when, how often, and why. It also gauges students’ attitudes towards these spaces and explores students’ understanding of ‘learning resources and spaces’.

Table 6: Summary of Current Use of Learning Resources and Spaces

Current Use of Learning Resources and Spaces

 Choice and reasoning - there appears to be a key difference in the way students think about learning resources and spaces – from ‘general’ resources such as library and IT facilities which are assumed to be of a good standard (prior to coming to university) to more ‘specialist school specific’ resources which did appear to be an influencing factor towards choice of institution.

 Choice of resources seemed to depend on the availability of school based resources – if there were none available, the Robinson Library was in many cases the default location for accessing a range of resources.

 There is a difference in the need and use of resources between subjects, for example, for some the emphasis is on group work space, for others, the main resource may be specialist software.  The Robinson Library is a very popular space, particularly over exam periods. Frustrations related to other students securing resources (such as the private study rooms or locking PCs). All groups resoundingly asked that the Robinson Library be open 24 hours, particularly during busy exam periods.

 IT resources are a central concern for most students. Frustrations include the over-use of Facebook by peers, the slow speed of working with RAS, and problems with wireless connection during ‘busy’ periods in the Robinson Library, but there was also a lot of praise for Blackboard and Recap services and a strong desire to see these facilities used more.

 The notion of ‘peer interaction’ was raised as a mechanism of learning support – two groups appreciated having spaces (e.g. common rooms. IT cluster) which the ‘seniors’ also used as they could ask them for help and advice. Interestingly, another group which did not have any such space to interact with those in different years raised this issue and felt it would be useful for promoting learning and receiving advice from others.

Choice and Reasoning

Students obviously have their own style and preferred ways of working, but what appeared to affect where students chose to work was the availability of spaces and resources within their department. For example, if a school appeared to have no school-specific resources, the library often became the default location. For others if their school had school-specific resources and specialist equipment this became their ‘home’, unless there was insufficient workspace, in which case those students would graduate to general campus resources or work at home.

There was also variation in what different groups needed, for example, some placed emphasis on informal spaces that facilitate multi-purpose working, focusing on desk space for group working. Others wanted more studio space where they could mark S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 20 out a space for carrying out project work, whilst access to PC resources with the appropriate specialist software was very important for some. As stated, the Robinson Library appeared to be the main default location for students lacking school-based learning spaces, partially due to having several resources and spaces under one roof, such as the student texts collection, PC clusters, quiet space and group work space, and a café (although this was mentioned as being expensive). However, as highlighted in the next section on ‘Knowledge and Communication’, there was also a lack of awareness of other spaces around the University, therefore students were unaware of what other facilities were open to them.

In the case of one group of students, even though their school is attached to the Medical Sciences faculty, they tend to use the Robinson over the Walton Library. One of the main reasons why the Robinson Library is so popular with these students appears to be its location in relation to where they live. This group of students (along with many other Stage II students who took part in the focus groups) use the Robin- son Library as a learning space a lot because many of them live in Jesmond. It is therefore more convenient for students to work there compared with spaces located at the centre of the campus.

Another, rather more serious point that was made, particularly by female members of the focus groups, related to the issue of personal safety when using facilities very late at night. The Robinson Library was preferred, for example, to the Fell & Pass cluster, about which participants said, “I'd hate to walk there on a night” and “it's really scary walking down that lane”.

Library facilities

The Robinson library was a very popular space (indeed, too popular at times) and overall was perceived positively in terms of the resources it offered. The Walton Lib- rary was less well used by the participants (this is in part a reflection on the subject areas selected) though those who had used it found it to be a useful working space, and often quieter than the Robinson Library. The main disadvantage with the Robin- son Library in particular was that it was felt to be ‘busy’ all the time - particularly during peak usage times i.e. exam periods. Some students described not even attempt- ing to go to the Library assuming no resources would be free. Several students stated they had queued prior to the library opening simply to obtain a space.

-But over the exam period I was queuing outside at 8.30 and there was a trample to get in, literally I nearly fell over, and then one person did fall over. And these guys were just pushing past, there was no chivalry! I was being pushed to one side to get a place in this room and it wasn't even that worth it. And then even the computers are the same…

-Yes, there isn't enough space.

-And during exams…I think I'd go home just because… there are so many people there, and obviously our fault, but people you know, so you're going to see people and be talking. So I'd rather not see people.

-That's why I like the little rooms because you don't get distracted.

“I was pretty keen and went at 8 a.m. one morning, don't know why…! And I got there and there were no seats at all. That was summer exams last year and there was nowhere to sit at all.”

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 21 One of the main positives about the Robinson Library (and some participants mentioned the Walton Library in this respect) was that it was a space where quiet focussed work could be undertaken. Many felt they were able to focus and not be distracted, compared to common rooms or being at home (although this was preferred by some), though this was not the case during busy periods. A number of students talked about library spaces as useful disciplining structures – they found that basing themselves in a library compelled them to work in a more focussed way than being at home, for example.

Because it’s quiet the majority of the time. It gets you out of the house so you are not distracted so, it’s good to go there…no distractions.

“if I'm in the library I will definitely do it and I actually quite like going to the library because I actually do get my work done there.”

In addition to ‘quiet floors’ where individual study was undertaken, students used different types of group work space. In the case of the Robinson Library, the area offi- cially know as ‘YourSpace’ (although students rarely used this label and referred to it as ‘the pink and green room’, ‘the Gucci bit at the bottom of the library’, and ‘downstairs on the sofa’) was used quite a lot by certain groups, though hardly at all by those students with available school-based resources. This space was highly praised and many participants suggested there should be more spaces like this – the emphasis being on spaces where people were allowed to talk as well as eat/drink and where they had access to IT resources.

Facilitator: What is it that you like about that space? [YourSpace]

It’s good for...we used it a bit last year when we had a lot of group presentations on power points and things because it’s got the big TV screens that you can link up to the laptop so everyone can see as you’re typing.

You’re allowed to talk, as well.

Yeah, whereas the rest of the library you can’t.

Securing of Resources

User etiquette is a significant issue. Students expressed frustration with users of PCs or small Study Rooms based in the libraries who secured the resource for extended periods when not apparently using them (i.e. by locking computers or going to the library early to gain a Study Room and then leaving their belongings in the room whilst they go elsewhere). While students would often express empathy on this issue inas- much as they understood how difficult it often is to find resources, it was nevertheless a source of considerable annoyance.

-Because I know on the other floors there are little group work rooms that you can book out…and maybe they need more of those. Maybe more of the private study rooms because they go instantly! During term periods, I’ve seen people running up the stairs to see if there is a door open to those… and then they will be in them all day!

-And sometimes when they go out, they leave their books and stuff so no one else can go in!

-Yeah, if you walk around in the middle of the day, only about 20% of them will have anybody in there yet 80% have bags and books in them where people have just gone home for a couple of hours and then left it.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 22 That’s actually worse than people being on Facebook; when they lock the computer,

24 hour opening

Every group requested that the Robinson Library in particular be open 24 hours. Whilst there was some debate about whether students would be in the library at 3.00am and whether it should be ‘24-7’ opening, participants in all groups agreed that the minimum should be 24 hours during exam periods. The comparison was regularly made with Northumbria (and other universities known to the participants). The 24 hour access was not simply for the late night opening but also early morning as many students felt they would like earlier access (6.00am was mentioned by a few) and had queued outside waiting for the library to open. Some groups also mentioned that there was apparently such a strong feeling about this issue that there was a Facebook campaign for 24 hour access.

-This one should be at least open 24 hours in the exam period.

Facilitator: Could you imagine yourself here at half 3 in the morning?

-Sometimes, with deadlines.

-I would never come in in the evening. I'd sack it off if it was past 10. That would be excessive.

-Early mornings, if I had an exam at 9 o'clock I'd probably get up at 6 and come in and work.

-Yes, I've come in before when it's been closed, and I think I came in at a quarter past 8 or something and it was closed and it really surprised me…

-At least during exam periods, definitely

-I like to get up really early, around 6, and I can be in by half 6 or 7, but they don’t open until 9.

-I think that's an idea, maybe just during exams to be 24 hours and then just make it a tiny bit flexible other times.

I see there are quite a few universities that do a 24/7 library and I was quite surprised Newcastle did- n’t do that.

I've been past Northumbria library at about 4 in the morning, and it's absolutely packed at that time.

Insufficient Core texts

Many students felt there were insufficient core texts (including short-loan). Some felt the long loan was ‘too long’ and people ‘sat on books’. Some participants praised the student text collection service, while others were confused by it, and some others had not even heard of it. One group stated that all students within their school (not just those studying specific modules) needed access to one core text book (which cost over £150 so the price restricted their ability to buy it). There were insufficient copies of that key text and students suggested that due to the course being heavily reliant on this one book, that an e-copy of it should be purchased and put on blackboard for all to access.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 23 I don’t know how many they’ve given our school but the whole school, not just our year, the entire school needs those 6 books. If you had one E-Book available on Blackboard, it would be useful.

A lot of the time when they say go and have a look at a book, they’ll have two books and about ninety people rush into the library to look for these two books. And that’s really annoying.

IT Resources

Location of IT Resources

Many participants seem to use the Robinson Library when they want to access IT resources despite there being other PC clusters often closer to their school. Though other campus-based clusters are apparently used regularly by some participants, including the Old Library, Bedson, Fell & Pass and Lawn & Naiad. Where they are available, students will tend to use school-based PC clusters, particularly for routine work and social purposes. However, participants felt that a problem with some of the campus-based clusters was teaching usage and being ‘thrown out’ when teaching commences.

Every group mentioned that the main IT cluster (Level 2) was ‘always’ busy in the Robinson Library. There is a feeling that the situation is particularly bad during exams but students feel the constraints all year round. Many students tend to have set routes if their preferred space (e.g. PC cluster) is unavailable. Students talked of “traipsing” around campus seeking out a PC, often without success, as something that happens regularly. Participants also mentioned that there are 2 cluster rooms downstairs in the Robinson Library but some participants were often unsure whether there were classes going on and didn’t like to enter – they were often quiet spaces so ‘I never like to go in’ just in-case there was a class. Participants stated there was often a sign outside to indicated whether a class was in progress, however, sometimes the sign is left up when there is no class and this adds to the confusion.

- It's really bad if you have gaps in lectures, you think 'I'll go and get some work done' and you just end up walking around. (Agreement).

Facilitator - Does that happen a lot?

-Yes. Even if your gap's 4 hours long…

-And then you go and find one in the Herschel and then get kicked out five minutes later because there's a class in there.

-I found myself standing staring over a group of people in the library waiting for someone to press 'log off'… I felt like a fool. … -I now prefer to work at home because it's not worth traipsing around.

Facebook

The use of Facebook was raised by every group and often described as ‘annoying’ due to students using it in busy IT clusters or ones where there is specialist software. However, students did concede that the line between study and non-study is blurred as many used Facebook to contact friends on their course, ask questions or arrange activities. Students also admitted that they would have Facebook open when ‘working’ – they appeared to draw a distinction between being logged on to Facebook and

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 24 using it for extended periods looking at pictures for example. Despite the obvious frustrations, few students were felt comfortable or were prepared to say anything to others using Facebook in the PC Clusters. Practical suggestions were made in response to these issues – such as having rows of PCs with Facebook disabled (especially in cluster rooms with specialist software), or having more express workstations for carrying out quick tasks. However, no group appeared to want a blanket ban on Facebook . there are people who just go on there and just sit on Facebook all day. I’m like ‘I need to go on that bloody computer to do stuff!’

In your bit?

Here in our cluster and all over!

I think it’s more of an issue in the Robinson.

Yeah, in the Robinson…it’s more of an issue, yeah.

I don’t know how everyone else feels but it wouldn’t even…for me it wouldn’t be bad if Facebook was blocked on that because at the end of the day, we go there for the specialist software.

And it also actually drives me – this is a silly thing –marginally mad when people are on the computers when it’s busy on Facebook. And I want to say, ‘If you’re not doing work, get off, let me go on it.’

Facilitator - Would you ever say, ‘I want to do some work.’

I wouldn’t dare.

Its part of the culture really, that people tend to check Facebook more than their emails! It’s easier to get them on Facebook than sending them an email!

Many students use RAS, both on and off-campus. Most find it frustratingly slow, particularly those students working with specialist software, but even those viewing pdf files via the library resources. Knowledge of the functionality available via RAS is very patchy and often poor, for example many students e-mail themselves documents from university as they are unaware personal drives could be accessed remotely.

If RAS had it [specialist software] and it worked well, that would be the best solution…because if you can access it through RAS, it’s a fairly good system but it needs to work smoother and it needs to work better!

Yeah, it needs to work faster…you can tell when it’s going through an internet connection and its struggling and it runs slowly.

But you can't get on your documents that way, can you?

Yes, you can.

Yes, you can get on everything.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 25 Oh I only use RAS to get on, like, the library…Like, JSTOR and stuff

I've only used it for my timetable…

Is that how you get onto JSTOR?

Thing is, we don't get told any of this. … Yes, like now I feel really silly. I didn't even know that I could check… I've been emailing myself for months, huge bits of that where I could have just gone on RAS it seems!

Well I didn't know you could check documents

Laptops

While all participants said they owned a PC, usually a laptop (seen as a necessity), the vast majority rarely brought it into university on a day to day basis – the exception appeared to be around exam time when some students bring their laptop in to be as- sured they have a resource for completing assignments. When students have used laptops on campus – often in Robinson Library – they have found that there are insufficient plug sockets to charge them as during exam time a lot of students worked on laptops. Further, if students do manage to get a socket, some said that the wires can become a “trip hazard” because sockets are not appropriately located. Hence, participants thought the layout required changing so more desks were available with plug sockets. On the whole, laptops are considered too bulky/inconvenient to have at university regularly. Some students felt lockers might be useful, though, in general, they stated they probably would not use them (but perhaps would for books).

It’s heaving in there [Robinson Library during exam periods] and nearly everyone is using their laptop. You really have to fight for plug sockets! And then the ones that are there are on the other side of the walkways to the desks and guys just walk around all day and they tell you to move it…it’s a trip haz - ard.

Which is fine or why not move the tables near the plug sockets…if they want us to use the plug sock - ets?

Wireless network use

On the whole, the participants appeared not to be heavy users of the University’s wireless network; given the low laptop usage referred to above this is hardly surpris- ing. One of the places where this is used, however, is Robinson Library. Though access to the wireless connection was reported as often lost during peak periods in the Robinson Library so this needs improving from the student point of view. Low wireless network usage among participants may also relate to a lack of confidence on the part of some students about how to connect to the service.

I think the wireless in the library needs to be sorted out because once you get a few people in it, you just get kicked off continuously because you get so slow.

But I think they were having a lot of problems with the wireless during exams, especially if you went to the top floor. A lot of people, friends couldn't log onto the internet on laptops, and when I went and spoke to one of the IT people he said there were too many people on the wireless network. And we were like 'Well that's not my problem, it's the library…You should have a bigger network.'

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 26 Blackboard and RECAP

Blackboard was a well regarded resource and there was discussion about lecture notes being available on Blackboard and the RECAP service. There was wide variation in usage by lecturers in all subject areas from those who hand write notes and will not use Blackboard to those who put all notes on Blackboard and use RECAP. Students like the idea of the Re-cap facility and were clear that when it was used by staff they were not dissuaded from attending those lectures. Rather than whether or not RECAP is used, what seems to be more important in determining lecture attendance is the perceived standard of the lecturer. Apart from storing course-related materials, Blackboard’s discussion list functionality is occasionally used. Experience of this was mixed; some students found it useful to share thoughts on coursework issues, while others found that some teaching staff were less than helpful in respond- ing to student queries.

[subject] don't do Blackboard very much.

Yes, I wish they would.

I think they have personal reasons for that because once you put their work onto the University Black- board, its' the property of the University and I think some of our lecturers have a bit of a problem with that, 'their work, their notes' and they don't want to hand over, you know…

Blackboard would be useful for me but because of my job to finance me through Uni, it means working late nights, all the lectures are in the morning and I find it very hard a lot of the time to make my lectures in the morning. If I had Blackboard it would mean I could have the lecture notes there, whereas at the moment I have to go around everywhere trying to find the lecture notes for lectures I've missed.

School Specific Resources

Peer Interaction and Social Spaces

Common rooms differed widely between subject areas. Those who had dedicated spaces with some PCs and vending machines highly valued such spaces, particularly the opportunity to interact with peers at the same stage of their degree as well as those at a more advanced stage; this interaction is viewed as a positive means of ex- changing skills/knowledge. However, some apparently have no such social space, whilst some spaces appeared to be unappealing.

One group that has a student common room said they would very much like it to be improved to facilitate peer interaction. Another group based in a school that has no common room displayed little interest in having one, but this was due to their lectures being spread across campus meaning they were rarely in the same building.

The use of teaching spaces (e.g. lecture/seminar rooms) had been used by some participants for both individual and group work when they were not being used for teaching, though there does not appear to be much in the way of an explicit policy about this kind of usage. Several participants felt the availability of space in this way was a good idea and may help to ease space/resource constraints.

There was some discussion about the Student Union as a social space – the general consensus was that it could be improved. It was compared by many to the equival- ent space at Northumbria University which was perceived as being ‘much better’.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 27 Newcastle’s Union was perceived as very expensive compared to other venues and generally not as appealing in terms of layout, appearance & decor, facilities and food. Saturday night in Newcastle City centre was seen as the most expensive night out therefore this was an opportunity for the union to offer a good alternative. However, there was a general feeling that those making decisions about the union were out of touch with what a lot of students want. For some participants, the Union is seen as a venue that is more popular with, and is generally run by, those who are members of the various student societies, which can sideline the interests of the wider student body. Participants were aware there were plans to refurbish the union but felt that the plans still did not reflect what students wanted and stated they should have taken account of the views of students to a greater extent.

But this is another classic; if they asked students what they want from their Union they would end up with an awesome Union. If they’re going to spend 8 million pounds on it, ask the students what they want from it...

Of course. At the end of the day, it's our money!

Across the focus groups, there was significant variation in terms of the level and quality of school-based resources available to students. Overall, it would appear that those students who have high quality resources/spaces at a school level appreciate them and use them intensively. Further, many of those students recognise the consequential benefits in terms of inter-student, and in some cases staff-student collegiality, and seem to adopt more of a sense of ownership and responsibility towards resources and the school as a whole.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 28 Findings: Theme II Knowledge and Communication of Learning Resources & Spaces

This section focused on participants’ knowledge of learning resources and spaces. The focus was therefore on what resources/spaces students were aware of and how students found out about those resources/spaces.

Table 7: Summary of Knowledge and Communication of Learning Resources

Summary of key issues relating to Knowledge and Communication of Learning Resources

 A lack of awareness of resources and spaces available around campus (and how to use some of them) was one of the key points raised within all 8 focus groups.

 Students voiced frustration at an apparent lack of awareness-raising of different kinds of learning spaces on the part of the University and questioned why they were not informed about the different spaces and resources.

 Many felt there was ambiguity over spaces which was not helped by confusing labelling in certain cases.

 There was a reticence to ‘explore’ - many felt they were not ‘allowed’ into certain spaces. Some felt this was a legacy from their ‘school’ days where there were restrictions in the use of different spaces.

 Participants often compared their university experience with others on different courses or at different institutions.

Lack of awareness

Awareness of the range of potential learning spaces within schools and around campus is ad hoc. We found quite a lot of variation between as well as within groups. In- deed, we discovered that the focus group situation proved to be a valuable occasion for students to share knowledge in this regard. The lack of awareness of what is available for students to use and how to use resources that were known to students was a key theme throughout all 8 focus groups. This included a lack of knowledge about what spaces and resources students can access (e.g. many students were unaware that all students are entitled to use the Open Access Centre), where certain resources are located, the capabilities of some facilities, such as RAS (e.g. the ability to access their university documents remotely rather than e-mailing themselves the documents), and how to access some services (e.g. certain library facilities). One area of ignorance related to the newly refurbished PC clusters around campus (including Lawn & Naiad, Fell & Pass, Bedson) which many students were unaware of unless the resource is located in their school or they happen to have friends on other programmes that use the resource. , This is something that some participants felt was ‘sad’ as the University is investing considerable money in improvements but students often don’t know about them and therefore don’t necessarily use the resources.

“I think the problem is that we're all completely in the dark about the resources. You don't know what you're really allowed to use.”

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 29 it just seems really sad that we don't make the most [of resources] and the University must find it annoying that they put so much money into these things and we don't use them.

No one knows about it

We haven’t been told about them [spaces and resources around campus].

Why would we particularly want to go this specific place?

Right, we’ve got a sofa at home.

Why would I want to travel into town to go to this one place to work when I live in Jesmond and I’m only in Uni for 6 hours a week? It just sounds a bit ridiculous.

It might be more suitable for people who aren’t on this kind of course.

Yes, exactly.

Frustration at not being told

Students voiced frustration at an apparent lack of awareness-raising of different kinds of learning spaces on the part of the University and questioned why they were not informed about the different spaces and resources. Participants felt that they should receive information at the start of each academic year – not all information given in Fresher's week as many felt this led to information overload. In addition, some of the international students stated they had arrived late and therefore missed such information.

-They give us that much information at the start of uni but there’s still nothing that’s said, ‘These are the places you can print, these are the places you can...’ It’s just basic information that you have to pick up from word of mouth really.

-I think having sat here and talked about the different places I’m now thinking, ‘Oh, maybe I will go there.’ It’s just knowing about it.

- I wouldn’t really want a tour but I think it would be useful if every year they sent everyone something that just said, ‘The new things are this’ or ‘The restrictions on this are this.’

-Just something that’s not thrown at you. Because there’s so much stuff that I’m sure I did get told in Fresher’s week that I didn’t take in because there was so much you were getting told.

Ambiguity over purpose of space

Students expressed ambiguity over the purpose of some learning spaces which can lead to their avoidance and lack of use. In addition, the labelling of some spaces was seen as rather ambiguous by a number of participants (e.g. YourSpace, The Learn- ing Zone, Learning Lounge) and again this appears to be related to non-use in some cases. I find it really unhelpful when it just says 'The Learning Lounge'.

I went and checked my emails in there but I never know how long you’re allowed to sit in there so I wouldn’t go in there to sit and do a piece of work. I don’t know what the purpose of it is in there. I wouldn’t want to stay too long in case someone else wanted the computer or something.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 30 “I think I used that once [OpenSpace], but I was under the impression that it wasn’t … I don’t know if it’s like a quiet area or if it’s a study group kind of area, I wasn’t sure.”

Reticence to ‘explore’

There was a sense that the location of resources attached to a school or ones that are unfamiliar to participants suggests they are not for universal use. Indeed some described this as ‘still being in school mentality’ about being ‘allowed’ to use certain spaces. For example, the medical and law libraries were seen by some as being ex- clusively available to students studying those subjects. Overall, the participants seem to adopt the default position of ‘if we haven’t been told a space is for us, we assume it isn’t’.

I think if we were just taught in the beginning at the lectures or something 'This is open to you…' I know that my mindset is that I'm so used to, even now in my second year, I'm so used to the school way of doing things. And if you're not doing something then you're not allowed in that area. Like, the thing about Uni that I have to remember is that everything is open to everyone, and if I knew there was a cluster in the Law place, I wouldn't go there because I'd think it was for Law students. Or the Medical students in the Medical Building, and that's my school way of thinking, that if you're not doing that sub - ject then you're not allowed the computer in the RS room, for example.

Information monitors

Information monitors which indicate PC availability do not appear to be used widely – many participants were unaware they existed and some of the participants who had referred to them felt the monitors didn’t provide accurate information. Having said this, the concept of having real-time information about cluster availability was univer- sally welcomed. From students’ perspective, there is a need for information to be easily available on which clusters are used for teaching and when they were being used for that purpose.

Comparison of experiences

There is an increased propensity for students to compare their experience of studying at Newcastle University, including the nature and quality of learning resources available to them, with experiences elsewhere. Comparisons with Northumbria Uni- versity came through particularly strongly in the focus groups, especially regarding library opening hours (i.e. Northumbria Library being open 24 hours) and the superior quality of Northumbria’s Student Union. Some students also compared their experiences and resources to friends on different courses within Newcastle University, describing being both ‘better off’ or conversely ‘having less’ facilities and contact hours than friends.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 31 Findings: Theme III Contextual Issues and Expectations

This section aims to explore students’ experiences in relation to expectations - including reflecting focus group discussions about students’ expectations about resources prior to coming to university and whether this influenced their choice of institution. This also included whether/how students’ behaviour changes according to, for example, year of study, time of year, discipline. This section touches on a number of issues that intersect attitudes to learning resources/spaces. We found that opinions on resources were often intertwined with notions of value for money, for example, or that they could be overshadowed by other dimensions of the student experience, such as positive relations with staff.

Table 8: Summary of Contextual Issues and Expectations

Summary of Contextual Issues and Expectations

 Assumed level of ‘good’ resources – many participants stated that as Newcastle had a reputation of being a ‘good’ University, they presumed there would be a correspondingly good level of resources. Resources appear to become more of an issue as students’ progress through their studies.

 The use of learning resources and spaces appears to differ from 1 st to 2nd year. This can largely be explained by a change in the type of accommodation (from Halls of Residence to private) and students staying on campus more in 2nd year to do work during breaks.

 The notion of ‘value for money’ was raised by several groups in connection with their attitude towards resources – this applied to those who felt they were ‘lucky’ with the level and quality of resources available to them as well as those who wanted more resources and facilities in - cluding an increase in contact hours with teaching staff.

 Relationship with staff was also a factor affecting satisfaction with resources (and value for money). Even those who felt they were well resourced were dissatisfied with some of the relationships they had with staff due to a feeling of staff valuing research more than teaching. One group with seemingly no school specific facilities praised staff and this appeared to help raise overall satisfaction with their learning experience.

 Overall participants appeared to value school based facilities rather than the more centralised option.

Assumed level of ‘good’ resources

Many participants stated that Newcastle University had a reputation as a ‘good’ institution, therefore they had assumed a ‘good’ standard of general resources (such as library and IT facilities). It appeared that the issue of general resources did not influ- ence their decision to choose Newcastle above other institutions. However, specialist school specific resources did seem to be an influential factor in the choice of New- castle (e.g. labs, clinics, specialist equipment). These things are valued quite highly through experience of working with them and it appeared that by the second year resources have become an issue of some significance.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 32 I didn’t really look at like...because you know that it’s a good uni...like I applied to good uni’s, so you just automatically assume for it to be a good uni it has to have a good, high standard of everything generally overall.

-It wouldn’t have at the time…but it would now, looking back and with the experience I have now, it would. At the time it didn’t.

-Because you really don’t know what to expect when you come to the course.

- Generally though I think we’re quite spoilt that we’ve got two on campus clinics. -Yeah, right. -Other unis I don’t think have that. -Yes, that was part of why I came here, because of the clinic...

Value for Money

The notion of receiving ‘value for money’ was mentioned by some groups in relation to the question of resources, both in terms of students feeling they ‘have it pretty good’ to those who don’t feel they are receiving value for money. Further, some participants expressed a sense of confusion as to how their tuition fees are spent by the University. In one group, there was a strong sense that they were not getting a good deal considering what they were being asked to pay for the experience and matters were made worse by the money being “wasted” on projects that students feel don’t enhance their experience, including the King’s Gate development. These issues are further interlinked with other dimensions of students’ experience such as the number of contact hours they receive and relationships with staff.

“That's why you pay three and a half grand each to come here, you should be getting your money's worth out of resources. Everyone's paying a fortune to come and you should be getting enough computer equipment and enough help.”

-we seem to get our money’s worth here, our tuition fees, where some courses are getting ripped off!

-Yeah, I think we are pretty lucky for our tuition fees…with all the facilities and people who work here. Quite a few of them are pretty respectable in their fields!

Someone worked out they paid…they were meant to pay about £100 a lecture and then because of the lectures they’d missed, they changed it to like £250 a lecture.

But then can you claim any money back…if a lecturer doesn’t turn up or…

Yeah…well, we always feel like we paid for you to be here!

At some of the uni’s you can!

Really!?

Yeah, if you can prove that the lecturer hadn’t turned up and cancelled the lecture, you can claim it back.

Relationship with staff

This appeared to be an important factor affecting overall satisfaction and one that in some senses competed with the nature and quality of learning resources. Parti- cipants from some subject areas where there appeared to be a lack of school specific

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 33 resources still described themselves as being fairly satisfied and this appeared to be due to a perceived good relationship with lecturers and, in one case, with a school secretary who for those students kept the department together. Conversely, one of the schools which benefitted from many school specific facilities and resources felt that lecturers were more interested in research rather than teaching students and felt ‘sidelined’ by staff and unable to get hold of them. In this case, there was a feeling that they (the students) were paying fees and therefore staff should be more available.

Yes, I can't say enough good things about her.

She was away for a week and the department crumbled.

Any extensions, any personal problems, you can talk to her; she's brilliant … everyone here we all get on really well, we all have good lecturers, the lecturers are amazing

-What I will say about Newcastle University…I don’t know if you are going to ask us this but…there is a definite feeling that Newcastle University is a research university…it’s not an undergraduate uni! And you notice that, especially in our school.

-A lot of the guys are really, really far off in their field, which is fine and that’s really, really good. How - ever, we sat through a few lectures and you get the opinion that they are there for the research and not really there for the students! At the end of the day, we pay the majority of their wage…we’re paying £3000 a year to then be kind of sidelined and things like that…well, a little bit more in some cases! ((insinuation of more for international students present))

-I feel that occasionally…well, quite a few times…you’re sidelined and research takes priority.

In addition, within some schools, students described social spaces which were used by both staff and students and this informal interaction appeared to be highly valued and helped build relationships. However, not all groups appeared to want spaces which were shared with staff. Although very tentative at this stage, it appears that students following the more ‘vocational’ programmes value this kind of interaction more than some of their peers.

Differences in behaviour and the convenience of resources.

Resource usage appeared to be different from 1st to 2nd year. This mainly seemed to be due to where students lived during 1st year i.e. Halls of Residence. Many had used IT resources within Halls if available or used those located at the Medical school as this was often on the way to university for many. In the second year, the Robinson library appeared to be closest to where many stage 2 students live, Jes- mond, and is therefore very popular for accessing a range of resources. In addition, depending on the number of contact hours received, most students stated they tended to stay on campus in their second year during the day more than they did as first years. This point is linked to the widely held feeling among participants that they worked a good deal harder in their second year.

This set of findings relates to the issue of how convenient resources are, something which appeared to be a priority for many students, as compared with the quality of a resource, for example. Most prefer the idea of school specific resources compared with centralised facilities. For example, students prefer to have computer resources within a short distance of the buildings where they are being taught. Even walking to

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 34 the Robinson library was described by some as too far due to timetabling – i.e. if they only had an hour gap between lectures, by the time they went to the library they would have to come back again.

We only found out about it this year, so last year we had no knowledge that that room was even there.

Yeah, because it’s just the two groups that use it; it’s not the entire university which it is in the library. So that’s useful.

Like the library is all right but if you’ve got half an hour between lectures or after your lunch and you just want to print something, check your emails...you can’t go to the library and come back because it’s a ten minute walk, ten minutes finding a computer, ten minutes back. It’s not really feasible to do that.

You don’t have to walk anywhere so you don’t waste time walking and you only have to share it with a very small percentage of the uni students.

Satisfaction and importance of resources

On the whole, students are happy with the resources/spaces that are available to them although most of these (whether PC resources, common room spaces etc.) are felt to be insufficient/inadequate at peak usage times. The use of resources was considered very important and this appeared to be more of an issue as students progressed through university.

I think resources and space and everything is very important because we have to use it every day. Stuff like feedback, I’d really like it if that was better, I don’t think we get enough feedback. But you only need feedback – although it would be lovely to have it all the time – you only really need it ‘x’ number of times a year. But we use a computer or one of the spaces in uni every day.

I think if we didn’t have it, it would be like a really big problem.

Quite difficult.

It’s the thing we use the most and what we need the most.

Word of mouth

Word of mouth from friends on the same course or housemates studying other subjects is generally how participants found out about resources. Some participants described a session with librarians about how to use the library resources; however, this was not universal. Few appeared to have been guided by lecturing staff or received any written or oral information. Several groups stated that they were a ‘close knit’ group and sit and chat together, therefore if one person knows something they will share.

I think as well that because we’re a close knit group in our year that we can go and sit down together. But I don’t know what previous years were like. One person found out about it and...then the whole group knows.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 35 Student Suggestions and Recommendations

In all focus groups, students offered recommendations and suggestions as to what might help improve areas where they felt dissatisfied (detailed below). Some of these are subject-specific and these are detailed in the separate focus group summaries in Appendix 1). This section sets out commonalities across the groups. As the suggestions illustrate, there is no one single ‘answer’ but from the students’ perspective, many ‘doable’ and easily achieved actions could be considered.

Information about resources

All groups suggested the need for regular, comprehensive, in some cases real-time, information about resources and resource availability. This included:

 Information on learning resources/spaces being made available at appropriate times; not just Fresher’s week when students are trying to take in all kinds of information and when some international students may not have arrived at university. It was suggested that information could be reiterated each term.

A number of suggestions were discussed about how such information might be made available to students. As part of this, more clarity about which spaces are available to students, both at a school level and on campus more generally, would be important. At the moment, students tend to assume that if they haven’t been told a space is for them, it isn’t. The suggestions included:

 A handbook of resources - what there is, where it is located, how it can be accessed, who is able to access it, and what the capabilities of facilities like the RAS service are. (For example, the facility to quickly find out where different kinds of printing facilities are located, or where to find and how to photocopying facilities).

 Similar information also to be available on the intranet about resources and how to use them (students stated they would also like to use their mobile phones to access such information).

 The option of SMS alerts relating to real-time information about available PC resources (i.e. IT cluster availability incorporating scheduled teaching times).

 Participants also suggested a more ‘old-tech’ option of having a large notice board displaying printed teaching timetables for all computer clusters to enable students to check which is free and at what times so they can plan a route if their chosen PC cluster is busy. The notice board could be sited outside each PC cluster, in the libraries and in the entrance of main buildings. Participants stated that there is ‘not much point having it on-line as need a PC to check’.

 A similar SMS alert option advising students of lecture cancellations. Participants said it was frustrating if they travelled to university for a lecture that they later found out had been cancelled, or if they were hanging around university for a lecture later in the day that turned out to have been cancelled. Part of this issue relates to what is perceived as a lack of sufficient PC resources enabling students to quickly check e-mails. Hence, it was believed that having more express work-

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 36 stations would help here (see ‘IT Resources’ sub-section below for further details).

Library Facilities

 The perennial issue of there being insufficient copies of core texts was raised by many students.

 There would appear to be a need for some clarification on how the student texts (short loan) service operates.

 There is a general feeling that more resources, particularly more PCs and also YourSpace-type resources are required around campus (e.g. Old library building)

 Every group requested that the Robinson Library should be open 24 hours – particularly around exam periods (the comparison was made with Northumbria and other universities that offer 24 hour opening). This was not simply for the late night opening but also early morning as some students felt they would like earlier access and had queued outside waiting for the Robinson library to open. While there was some debate about this, participants in all groups stressed that the minimum should be 24 hours around exam periods.

IT Resources

 The majority of groups suggested having more express PC stations available (~ 10mins) for carrying out short tasks (e.g. printing, checking e-mail or Facebook). The express PC stations should have no chairs to discourage people from using them for long periods of time (though there should obviously be resources accessible to wheelchair users) and also have an automatic log off facility after a certain period of time.

 Improve wireless network access in Robinson library during busy times.

 More plug sockets in the Robinson library (and possibly other spaces) to enable students to use laptops on study floors.

 Have automatic log-off facility, particularly within the main Robinson Library PC cluster, which would log off users after, say 20-30 mins, of inactivity. This is seen as a response to the situation where students apparently lock PCs and leave them for extended periods of time.

 Being allowed into PC clusters whilst teaching classes are in progress to use the free PCs was suggested by some students

 Several participants thought they should be able to eat and drink in learning spaces, including PC clusters. They acknowledge that cafes are quite useful but their opening hours are deemed inadequate (the Robinson café was also considered expensive by some). One participant suggested there could be a small area in PC clusters where eating and drinking was permitted. The greatest concern appears to be losing the PC if it is left while they go to have something to eat/drink.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 37  Participants were very positive about the use of Blackboard in supporting learning. However, they think that lecturing staff’s use of Blackboard could be improved; e.g. more use of Recap; better use of discussion lists, more of a ‘standard’ which staff adhere to about using blackboard.

 Improving the speed of working via the RAS service. This is a general problem but of particular concern to those needing to access specialist software. Also, there appears to be a need to inform students of how to perform basic operations via RAS (including accessing personal profile space).

General Spaces across University

 The signage of some spaces could be made less ambiguous, for example Robin- son Library’s Learning Lounge – “I find it really unhelpful when it just says 'The Learning Lounge'” and The Learning Zone.

 There was some support for the idea of campus-based lockers (more for books than laptops).

School Specific Resources

 Resources specific to schools (e.g. library, IT facilities) to have later opening hours on evening and weekends. As the resources are school specific, this may be the only place where students can access the specialist software or resources, therefore closing rooms at 5.00pm or 6.00pm is seen as not late enough to allow students to use such facilities after teaching finishes.

 More PCs (including those that have specialist software) in school-based IT clusters.

 Many students responded positively to being able to use vacant teaching spaces for learning purposes when they were not in use.

 Block Facebook access in part or all of school-based PC clusters to enable people to access the specialist software though maintain Facebook access in common rooms or on express PCs.

 Block games sites in school specific PC clusters – again to enable access to PCs which have specialist software.

 One group referred to a specific core text that was crucial to their studies but which cost hundreds of pounds. While there is one copy available in the school- based library, they would like an electronic copy to be made available.

 Students would like to be given books at the beginning of their degree – if this is added to the cost of tuition fees then it spreads the cost out over the lifetime of the loan.

Broader learning support issues

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 38  For those subjects with low contact hours, participants requested an increase in contact hours [– at least more than 6 hours]. More generally, almost all participants would like to have more face to face contact time with lecturers.

 One group of participants reported that their school has more than one staff-student committee structure that looks at learning resource issues. This seemed to be valued by those students and other schools that do not have similar structures may want to consider how the student voice can be better represented.

 Some students would like their assessments to be staggered to relieve some of the pressure of doing multiple assessments simultaneously. Others recounted that exams had been held off campus in Travel lodge and Eldon Square Sport Hall which was off-putting.

 Some groups mentioned the need for more assessment feedback in general, while others wanted feedback quicker (apparently some have waited 5 weeks due to the scheduled absence of lecturers).

 The desire for ‘getting one’s money’s worth’ was a theme within several groups. Students wanted to feel they received ‘value for money’.

 Getting recognition for attending lectures was raised within several groups. There was an apparent frustration with those who did not turn up for lectures but still managed to obtain good grades. This led to some students questioning the in- centive to attend lectures. However, accounting for lecture attendance as part of the module grade divided student opinion.

Key insights from researchers’ perspective

The starting place for this study was the 2009 results from the National Student Sur- vey (NSS) relating to student attitudes to learning resources (Q16, 17, 18). These questions are fairly narrow in scope, however, and this study has provided some useful insights behind these scores. For example, in connection with how students responded to the statement – Q17. I have been able to access general IT resources when I needed to – the focus group data suggest that many students have had difficulty accessing IT resources, particularly in the University’s Robinson Library, and reflect a general feeling that there is insufficient IT capacity in the University. However, apart from the fact that students may respond to that statement in different ways (e.g. based on their experience of ‘universal’ resources or those specific to a school), the in-depth focus group discussions revealed that this may not necessarily be due to a lack of IT facilities but in some cases due to:

 a lack of awareness of other PC clusters around campus, or  due to some PCs in busy clusters having been locked by users so others are unable to access them, or  due to students occupying PCs only to use Facebook, or  because teaching has put entire clusters out of action.

At the same time, while it was clear that the quantity of IT resources was deemed inadequate by students, they seemed to be generally very happy with the quality of PCs (apart from those students who require access to specialist software for much of

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 39 their work) and the overall standard of the cluster accommodation. The issues raised in the focus groups have, therefore, helped to form a more nuanced understanding of students’ experience of learning resources and spaces which shed some light on the bare NSS results.

At the same time, the data we collected suggest that there may not be a simple relationship between how subject areas fared in the NSS and the apparent level and quality of learning resources. For example, students from one of the lowest performing schools (in terms of NSS Learning resources results) appeared to have available to them some of the highest quality and most accessible resources on campus. In that case, it appeared that the relative sense of dissatisfaction registered in the NSS score related to frustration with a number of very specific resource issues such as insufficient personal file space and the perceived very high cost of printing. In addition, the students from a different subject area, who, again, appeared to have high quality resources at their disposal, but this time the subject area had performed relatively well in terms of the NSS results for resources, expressed some dissatisfaction with their relationship with staff due to feeling that they had limited access and were being ‘sidelined’.

Overall, the majority of students appeared to be satisfied with resources – when we asked focus group participants to rate their experience on a crude scale of 1-10, satisfaction ranged from 7-9 out of 10 with many stating ‘little things’ would make improvements. The suggestions from students are detailed above but some of the key general issues mentioned by all groups were:

 to receive more information on availability, use and location of resources and spaces at appropriate times and by different means (including which students are allowed to access which resources)

 to exploit the use of SMS to improve the transmission of information on resource availability and lecture cancellation (or other such information)

 the Robinson library to be open 24 hours – at a minimum during exam times

 generally more PCs (at school level, if possible, as well as more generally) and ‘YourSpace’-type resources

 more express PCs without chairs available for short periods of time

 automatic log off facilities after 20-30 mins if PCs have been locked

 being allowed into PC clusters whilst teaching is in progress if there are free PCs

 more and better use of Blackboard by teaching staff

 improving the experience of working with RAS, primarily in terms of speed, but also general knowledge of functionality

 addressing Facebook-related concerns in specific PC clusters

Our study found that it is by no means clear that the standard of learning resources is much of a differentiator in determining a student’s choice of university or a significant

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 40 factor in shaping a student’s overall level of satisfaction. As Neary et al (2010) recently found, “space does not register highly as an issue that students are much con- cerned about.” (2010: 29). Having said that, while (general) learning resources are low on many students’ list of priorities when they are finding a place to study, the availability and quality of resources/spaces does make a difference to the overall student experience once students come to realise how integral they are to their learning journey. At the same time, it appears that other factors (for example, the quality of relations between students and staff, the degree of integration between students on the same degree programme, the existence of mechanisms through which students can express their voice, being in receipt of a ‘sufficient’ number of contact hours, the existence of a departmental ‘home’) are of equal if not more importance in determining overall levels of satisfaction. Further, this study has confirmed that students are increasingly evaluating their university experience in terms of ‘value for money’; the quality and availability of learning resources is just one factor that students take into account when determining the extent to which they feel they are receiving good value.

Apart from revealing many useful insights, the focus groups seemed to provide a valuable opportunity for students to share experiences and learn from each other about the resources available at University. Further, it appeared that students very much appreciated the opportunity to exercise their voice in a more meaningful way than other questionnaire-based feedback exercises allow. And it was interesting to find that the focus groups created a space for students to challenge one another about their own attitudes and behaviour regarding resource use/knowledge.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 41 Avenues for further investigation

There are a number of issues arising from this study and the other studies carried out by KITE on behalf of the University over recent years (including the implementation of the e2r systems – Wilson et al, 2006 – and the focus group study investigating student satisfaction – Walsh et al, 2009) that the University’s management team may feel it would be advantageous to investigate further and which our research team would be happy to discuss. Four possible areas of enquiry are set out below.

Potential area of enquiry 1 A key finding of this study is the wide variation in student awareness and usage of campus resources twinned with the sense of frustration felt by students at this lack of awareness and at the experience of not being able to access resources when required. It may be very useful, by way of building on these findings, to gain a greater understanding of which students are using which non school-specific resources, when, and why. These questions could be addressed, on the one hand, by acquiring and analysing data relating to footfall that, ideally, provides details of, for example, the user’s year of study, programme of study, home vs. international status, and so on (data which could be acquired via a survey if the University’s systems are unable to provide them). On the other hand, these data could be usefully supplemented by a qualitative data-gathering process involving the sensitive questioning of users of these spaces.

Potential area of enquiry 2 Student engagement is clearly an area that concerns students (as well as the university) and one that students often feel is under-facilitated. One group in particular reported that they have different school-based mechanisms for representing their opinions and communicating school issues to them and this is something that is valued by them and which appears to be connected with a broader sense of student ownership and responsibility. Many other groups reported feeling detached from their schools and the university at large and this is something that detracts from their overall sense of satisfaction. The university may find it useful for there to be a study of such student engagement and communication activity across the university that seeks to understand what is happening and what works well, incorporating a review of initiatives taking place elsewhere in the sector.

Potential area of enquiry 3 While this and the other studies carried out by KITE have helped the University to gain a deeper appreciation of the student perspective, what is less clear is how Uni- versity staff think about the specific issue of student satisfaction and the broader student experience agenda. While closer engagement with staff is desired by most students, it appears that many of them assume teaching staff in particular are uninter- ested in performing a more supportive role towards them. At the same time, there appear to be examples of excellent practice around campus, at a school level and at a service level. We would argue that the development of more positive student engagement practices at Newcastle requires a greater understanding of the perspective of the various constituencies (service staff, teaching staff, faculty and school-based ad- ministrative staff etc.) that interact with students and shape their university experience, including a more systematic understanding of good practice. As we have found in previous focus group-based studies, offering the occasion for participants to discuss a set of issues can prove to possess intrinsic value (in terms of sharing and de- bating ideas and in terms of the participants feeling their voice is being listened to) as well as generating useful knowledge. S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 42 Potential area of enquiry 4 Finally, while this study has provided an improved understanding of the experience of stage 2 undergraduates, it may well be valuable to carry out a similar investigation of students in their final year of their undergraduate programme, at which point the demand and need for learning resources are likely to be even more intense, to see how/whether students’ strategies for accessing resources have changed from stage 2. It is, of course, highly probable that students completing the NSS are drawing on their experiences during their final year more than any other. Additionally, it may be interesting for the University to gain a more nuanced understanding of its postgraduate students, which would incorporate a more explicit international dimension on these issues, to supplement the survey data it already has access to.

We look forward to working with the University further.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 43 References

Neary, M., Harrison, A., Crellin, G., Parekh, N., Saunders, G., Duggan, F., Williams, S., and Austin, S. (2010) Learning Landscapes in Higher Education. Centre for Educational Research and Development, University of Lincoln. Accessible at: http://learninglandscapes.blogs.lincoln.ac.uk/files/2010/04/FinalReport.pdf

University of Birmingham (2005) eSpaces Project: Study on How Innovative Tech- nologies are Influencing the Design of Physical Learning Spaces in the Post-16 Sector. Accessed 10th February 2010. Available at: http://www.ldu.bham.ac.uk/other/espaces.shtml

Walsh, S., Richter, P., Wilson, R., and Whiston, B. (2009) Final Report: Student Satisfaction Focus Groups at Newcastle University

Williams S. (2009) The 2009 NSS and the University’s IT provision for Students. In- ternal Report to the University Teaching and Learning Committee.

Wilson, R., Richter, P., Cornford, J., Down, S., and Martin, M. (2006) ‘Report of the Case Study of the design processes of a university enquiries to registration process: the e2r project’. Internal Research Report: Newcastle University, AHRF.

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 44

Appendix 1 Focus Group Summaries

Focus group key

FG1 Speech and Language

FG2 Marine Technology

FG3 Classics

FG4 Joint Honours

FG5 Psychology

FG6 Philosophical Studies

FG7 English Literature and Language

FG8 Architecture

S. Walsh & P. Richter April 2010 45 Summary – Private and Confidential Focus Group Summary Speech and Language Sciences

Group Profile

6 Students (6 Female)

Overall Impressions and Context

Speech and Language Science students are based in the King George VI building and tend to have the majority of their lectures within this building. This appears to be a change from 1 st year as participants described having lectures spread out across several buildings. Being located and having lectures in the same building appears to be valued more – students have found out about resources and spaces which they did not know about in first year. For example, the resource centre and common rooms – both of which are well used and appreciated.

Overall participants stated they ‘felt lucky with what we’ve got in our building’ – the main frustration appeared to be a lack of text books available to them. Comparisons were often made with friends on different courses and they felt they were ‘better off’. Due to the nature of their course, there seems to be a need for group work, discussing clients etc, therefore students needed and placed emphasis on having group work space and desk space as they often had to make items/activities as part of their work.

NOTE: Speech and Language students are part of the HASS faculty but their fees are paid by the NHS.

Understandings of ‘learning resources and spaces’

 Books were described as the main resource, somewhere to sit and do work, the resource centre and the library

Current Use of Learning Resources

 The resource centre in King George VI building was highly valued and praised. The resource centre had ‘good facilities’ - PCs, large desks for group work space, laminators, bindings, books. Although the PCs were often used for teaching, it was generally still possible to use the desk space whilst teaching was taking place.

 The resources centre was described as mainly used for Speech and Language Science students and those studying PGCE therefore is a resource specific to those subjects rather than open to the whole university like the Robinson Library.

 ‘Your Space’ in the Robinson Library (not referred to by that label) was also highly praised – it was a space to do group work – large screens and students were ‘allowed’ to talk. They would like to use it more but it’s always busy.

 There are 2 common rooms in their building and the basement one tends to be well used. This is mainly a social space due to the layout – there are no tables to facilitate group working – just sofas for eating lunch and ‘chilling out’. It does get busy as it’s for the whole school not just the course but good to have it.

 Styles of working differs between students but the issue was more whether they could get access to resources in the library. Floors 3 & 4 in the library were perceived as the quiet floors for study – ‘everyone understands that’s where you work and it’s quiet’ although noise level increased at exam time!

 Most students had used the medical library but this was due to an anatomy module in 1st year and living in the Halls of Residence which were closest to the Medical library.

 Students tend to have set routes if their preferred space e.g. PC cluster is unavailable.

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential

Library & PC Clusters

 The Robinson library was described as ‘good in theory’ but it was ‘always packed’ therefore difficult to get a PC. Participants described this as both a positive and negative – good that it was well used but the downside being difficulty getting a space.

 Participants stated that it was only possible to get a space at the library if you got there for opening time, however, on their course this was rarely possible as they tend to have lectures in the mornings. They also noted that it was possible to get a PC after 6pm, however they had been in lectures all day so by then they just wanted to get home and have tea.

 All participants stated they had all experienced not being able to get a PC, particularly during peak periods and exam times.

 For some, the library is local to where they live so easy to get to.

 Participants tended to use the library on weekends – partly as their building would be shut and the library had student text collection.

 Participants liked the newly refurbished PC cluster in the King George VI building. It was well used when possible but it was noted that a lot of teaching takes place so it’s only free half the time.

 There are 2 cluster rooms downstairs in the library but some participants were unsure whether there were classes in and didn’t like to enter – they were often quiet spaces so ‘never like to go in’ just in case it was a class. Sometimes the sign is left up and this adds to the confusion.

Knowledge and Communication about Learning Resources and Spaces.

 Frustration that they did not know about certain resources and spaces in first year e.g. the resource centre and common rooms

 There appeared to be no structured or systematic way of informing students about what was available and when, e.g. no information as to where colour printers are located or other PC clusters and those which are 24 hours.

 Resources and spaces had been discovered in 2nd year by following other people to the common room (this was possible as they were now located in the one building and therefore tended to explore a little more). Other students informed then of them of a printer in the resource room – this was the first time they had heard about that particular space. The clinical super- visor had mentioned the resources room at the beginning of 2nd year.

 Students described themselves as a ‘close knit group’ - they sit down and chat together so if one person knows something they will share.

 Students did not know the official ‘labels’ of certain reduces and spaces but recognised some of them when they were discussed, however, there was a lack of awareness about 24 hour PC clusters (e.g. Bedson) and what was generally available.

 The library labelling seems confusing - the entrance is level 2. Learning Zone and Learning lounge were confused due to labelling. Some were unsure as to the purpose of the Learning Lounge and stated they wouldn’t have gone in unless someone else had showed them as ‘never know if it’s allowed’.

 Frustration that the library wasn’t open earlier especially at weekends as it doesn’t open until 10.00am – this was a frustration particularly during exam time.

 Participants in this group discussed the need for the library being open 24 hours particularly during exam time. Although they stated that due to the nature of their work, they rarely left

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential work to the last minute the majority of people do and they would still like it to be open 24hrs during exams. The comparison was made with other universities.

 Participants stated they may be told about different spaces during fresher’s week but this was not really the best time to give such information out – they are told so much they don’t take it all in and don’t prioritise this during fresher’s week.

Experiences and Expectations

 There was a difference between the use of resources from 1st to 2nd year. Part of this is due to not knowing what was available, and part due to the increased time spent at university in 2 nd year – students appear to make the most of being on campus and the work load is heavier than 1st year (e.g. now have clinics) – often during 1st year they ‘wasted time’. During 1st year they tended to use the medical library as this was closer to Halls of Residence.

 Participants stated their preference for resources to be within the King George VI building as they often have confidential information so don’t want to carry it around.

 All participants had their own laptop but rarely brought these into university – mainly due to weight and the option to loan laptops from the library (although uptake varied but all agreed it was good to have the option). As such not many had used the wireless service.

 The availability of books was a source of frustration – there were roughly 60 people on their course and only 2-3 copies of the books in the library – ‘hardly ever get a book’. As a result, participants stated they either can’t do the reading, give up or use e-journals (although some still printed out as they found it difficult to read on screen). Some try to recall books too. How - ever, there was an understanding that if books were on longer loan then people tend to just sit on them for the month.

 E-books did not appear to be well used.

 Participants stated that during Fresher’s week there was a tour of the library but the general feeling was that fresher’s week has so much information that it’s hard to take it all in and that’s not what the focus is during fresher’s week. Maps of the library would be useful – one person commented that she still did not know how to get to the café!

 Facebook was a source of frustration ‘it drives me mad’. Participants did use Facebook themselves but stated they would use it at home and at university but not on the busy clusters such as the library. There was some discussion about Facebook. It is recognised as a problem in the library as this cluster was always busy, however, some students do use it to contact other students and ask questions, therefore did not want a blanket ban on Facebook. The preferred solution would be consideration by other students however, this is often not the case and people don’t seem to care so signage probably wouldn’t help.

 Another source of frustration was students who lock PCs and go away for lunch.

 If there were to be more resources, participants preferred the location to be within their school – King George VI building. This was mainly due to timetables and only having half an hour or hour slots between lectures so this limited the time available to walk to other buildings as by the time they walked there and back there wouldn’t be any time left to do any work ‘don’t want to waste time walking’. In addition, their building was only shared with several other schools rather than the library being open to all.

 Participants appeared to value space – desk space and group work space over the need to have more PCs. If there is no teaching in the PC cluster then there is always plenty of room.

 The majority used RAS – liked to access specialist software e.g. SPSS and e-journals from home (and used it during holidays when returned to parents home).

 Blackboard was used and valued, although usage does depend on the lecturer

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential  Generally students stated they are satisfied with what exists – ‘it’s just little annoying things’. Resources were described as pretty good and they felt lucky with what they had.

 Resources were very important to the participants – this was compared with feedback – the latter being important but something which happens only a few times (they would like more!) whereas resources are something which are used everyday. The issue was more if they did- n’t have it then it would be a problem.

 The extent to which resources were a deciding factor in choosing a university differed. Stu- dents felt Newcastle University was a ‘good university’ so presumed it would have good standard of resources. It is only through experience of being at university that you gain an insight into what is needed – ‘until you’ve been there you don’t really know what you need’. As such there appeared to be an assumed confidence that the university had good resources (library, books). However, when discussing the on-campus clinics, this was seen as a strength of New- castle University compared with other Uni’s and one participant stated that this had been influential in her decisions ‘that was part of why I came here, because the clinic’.

 Some felt they had seen better resources elsewhere on open days but since she had been at Newcastle there had been a lot of building and improvements which was positive – indeed she stated that if she came now for a visit her opinion would be different compared with what she had seen the first time.

 When discussing the library as a resource some students described ‘better’ resources elsewhere (e.g. Sheffield) which had 24 hour access, others hadn’t really come on an open day to visit the library – the city overall seemed to be more important, although a suggestion was to have tailor-made open days. One student had chosen accommodation specifically to be near the library.

 Refurbished spaces were considered much better. Students valued the more informal surroundings – an ability to talk and feeling as if they had their own space.

 If participants wanted to give feedback on resources they were not sure who they would give such feedback to. This wasn’t something they would put on a module feedback form as it’s not the fault of the module leader if there is an issue about the building.

 Support from technicians both in terms of IT and also the ability to borrow equipment such as stop watches was valued.

 The two on campus clinics were highly praised – this was seen as a positive about Newcastle University as participants thought other universities didn’t have this facility. There were a few suggestions related to clinics, including the ability to access files and assessments for the child clinic in a different room as access to this documentation was limited due to clinic’s taking place. Also perhaps a couple of PCs in the paediatric clinic – for those occasions where they could not get to the IT cluster due to teaching or the resources centre, it would be useful to have access to type up notes etc in the clinic.

Participant Recommendations

 Participants would like more ‘space’ - particularly desk space for group work. Their preferred location would be in the King George VI building so they could access it during breaks (e.g. 1 hour free between lectures).  ‘Quick’ PC stations (without chairs) were seen as a solution to be able to print a document out quickly or check e-mails without having to wait. After a certain time e.g. 10 mins the PC should be logged off automatically to stop people staying on too long. This group stated there didn’t appear to be this option in the library at the moment.  More space like ‘your space’ - big screens and relaxed environment for group work  More information about where certain spaces are.  To alleviate the problem of not knowing what is available, participants suggested being sent reminders each year. This information would be updated with any new spaces or if any restrictions were in place.

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential  Participants suggested that it would be useful to have the facility to look information up e.g. where the printers are located, the use of photocopiers.  Improve books available in the library.  Extend the library opening times – to be 24 hours during exam periods.

Summary of Positive Comments and Improvements

Positive Comments

Overall satisfaction with resources available to them – only small annoyances

Valued resource centre and newly refurbished PC cluster in King George VI building

Highly valued clinics (for some this influenced their decision to choose Newcastle University)

Noticeable effort by the University to improve certain spaces

Useful to have access to common rooms

Students felt they were a ‘close-knit group’

Blackboard useful

Areas of Improvements

Group work space – needs to include large desks for the nature of their work. Preferred the relaxed style of group work space (like ‘your space’ in the Robinson Library).

More quick PC stations to print out or check e-mails – limited to ~10 mins

Awareness of resources and spaces available to them – not just in fresher’s week but at more appropriate times and reminders and updates each year.

Improve books available

Facebook and people locking PCs

Extended library opening hours – 24 hours during exam times

Confusing labelling of spaces

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential Focus Group Summary Marine Technology

Group Profile

9 Students (3 Female 6 Male)

The School of Marine Science and Technology is located in the Armstrong building. There is a school specific common room which appears to be well used by students and a school specific PC cluster (also used for teaching – it has specialist software specific to their subject). The school itself also has specialist facilities, for example, cavitation tunnels and towing tanks.

Participants appeared to know each other and were very willing to discuss and voice their opinions. Due to having school specific resources, the majority of students tended to use the resources within the school, particularly the PCs although this cluster was often used for teaching.

 Library, PC cluster, lectures theatres, labs, working places to learn and do work, books, lecturers.

 The common room within the school was highly valued and a well used resource – this was used as a group work space, a place to go to between lectures, to have lunch and when not busy (later in the afternoon) could be used for quieter study. Participants stated they were ‘lucky’ to have such a space and it was good that it was located next to their school PC cluster.

 The school also has its own PC cluster which was well used as this contains all the specialist software for their course (whereas the library doesn’t – it is only possible to access some of it over RAS but this is very problematic due to RAS being very slow). Also the software is not always updated in RAS. The other advantage of using school specific facilities for the participants was that they could ask the ‘seniors’ (those in the years above them) for help or advice. However, the drawback was that the room was often used for teaching so was difficult to access. In addition there were not enough PCs and in lectures there may be 3 people sharing 1 PC.

 Participants also used one of the seminar rooms when they were not in use for group work which was appreciated.

 For quiet study the library was sometimes used – the 4 th floor contains the books and references for their subject. However, the library was described as ‘rammed’ and ‘heaving’ all the time – particularly the PC cluster. Participants liked the private study rooms too but these were usually booked so more of these spaces would be good. Participants described the library as being particularly busy during exam time and had seen other students running up stairs to reserve the private study rooms. However, an irritation was that people would often leave their belongings in the room and go away for long periods of time.

 Participants had fairly high contact hours and so tended to be in every day and stay on campus whilst in – using the PC cluster or common room within their school – again because this is the only cluster which has the software specific to their needs.

 ‘Your Space’ described as the ‘Gucci bit at the bottom’ was perceived as a good space for group work but it was always busy so rarely could they get a space. Participants would appre - ciate more spaces like this one for group working, although the preferred location would be as a school based resource rather than a centralised one like the library.

 Facebook was described as a problem within PC clusters. The issue appeared to be particularly problematic in the Robinson library. In addition, participants felt it was annoying when people logged-in and then locked the PC and went away. As such, rarely did the participants even try to go to the library to use the PC cluster there. Facebook was also used in the school cluster but not to the same extent. However, it was an issue as this is the only cluster with specialist software so if people were on Facebook then they couldn’t do ‘work’. Suggestions ranged from blocking Facebook in the school cluster (not in the common room so people could still access it if they wanted to), to having rows of PCs with Facebook disabled – also in the Robinson library too. A blanket ban was not the answer as many used Facebook to contact other students – ‘it’s part of the culture that people check Facebook before their e-mail now’.

 Participants did state that they may be allowed into the cluster even if there was a class on, however, years 1 and 2 had large student numbers so even if students were allowed in there probably wouldn’t be a spare PC – more PCs would help resolve this problem. In addition, the cluster closes at 5pm and as most of the course work requires the specialist software a suggestion was to extend the opening hours.

 Participants felt that RAS would be a good facility if it worked well so resolving the slow speed and enabling access to the specialist software would be a preferred option. The issue is particularly with the modelling software due to the large volume of information which needs to be sent over RAS.

 Some of the PCs in the cluster also have software which doesn’t work properly.

 Participants felt the library should be open ‘24-7’ like other Universities (e.g. Northumbria) – especially during exam periods. Many were surprised that Newcastle did not do this any- way.

 More plug sockets were needed in the library as during exam time most people brought in laptops but there are not enough plugs. If they manage to get a socket, the wires are in the way so they are not in the right location and are a trip hazard. As such, the layout requires changing so more desks are available with plug sockets. In addition when the library is busy the wireless connection is often lost so this needs improving.

 Access and availability of books was also raised as an issue. The core text is difficult to ob - tain and it costs over £150 so is expensive to buy. There is only 1 in student texts and 2 on short term loan but 1 has gone missing. The suggestion was to have an e-book of this par - ticular book (Principles of Naval Architecture) and upload it to blackboard so everyone can access it.

 There is a library within the school however, this was not well used. It is small and books can’t be loaned. The perception was this would probably be used in the next few years. In addition, many had only found out about it this year. They stated they were probably told in fresher’s week but there are more appropriate times to be told. Also some of the international students arrived late and therefore missed such information so it would be useful to reiter- ate this a few weeks into the course.

 Citrix was an issue to use in 1st year – students were unsure whether it was an issue with Henderson Halls connection but students had struggled to download the software.

 Awareness about resources differed. For example, one participant described the process of how to access the school facilities at a weekend (the need for a signed letter giving permission for the student to enter and showing this to security). Other students were not even aware this was a possibility and would like access at a weekend. This process in itself could be improved.

 Participants knew of the 24 hour cluster but not the King George refurbished cluster. Page 52 of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential

 Word of mouth is generally how information is passed on but this is not in a structured way. Lecturers themselves had informed students that there are 12 copies of books whereas in reality there are only 4 so there is a need for information.

 Some participants wanted to be able to access their personal space over RAS – others stated this is possible now highlighting the gap in knowledge of what is possible – more information on what the resources are and how to use them.

 If tuition fees were increased they would want to see a corresponding increase in the resources and the quality of the surroundings.

 Every participant had their own laptop but generally wouldn’t bring these in on a day to day basis as there is no need. Students usually hand write their notes in lectures or handouts are provided. Even if laptop lockers were provided they would not be used.

 Many students had used the medical library in 1st year due to living in Halls of residence (Richardson Road). Flatmates who were medics also told them they could access the library.

 Express PCs were suggested – just to check e-mails and print out work and Facebook. There should be no chairs provided (PCs on higher stands) to encourage people to only use them for a short period of time.

 Blackboard is used ‘all the time’ and well liked. Some participants felt there should be a standard which all lecturers have to adhere to by putting information on blackboard. At present usage varies between lecturers – some with handwritten notes, others using blackboard. In general students stated there was a correlation between good lecturers and having the notes available. Students valued being given printed handouts.

 RECAP was a resource which was not well used but liked.

 There was some discussion about attendance and how lecturers took registers and handouts being taken by students for friends who were not present and therefore insufficient handouts for those in the room which caused frustration. A suggestion that students arriving late (after 20 minutes) should not be allowed in.

 Quirks of the system having to input passwords twice on OWA accounts.

 Facilities such as cavitation tunnels and towing tanks were considered very impressive – students stated they were ‘lucky with the facilities we’ve got’ and stated that other universities ask Newcastle to use it. Such facilities were described as influencing their decision to choose Newcastle above other institutions and was impressive to see such facilities on the open day. However, the library and PCs wouldn’t necessarily enter into the equation – they expected to have a good library as this was a good university.

 Students stated they felt they had their ‘money’s worth’ especially compared to other subjects who they thought were ‘ripped off’. They felt the contact time, facilities, people who work there contributed to the ‘money’s worth’. Some had worked out price per lecture at around £20 compared to friends on different courses with low contact hours who described each lecture costing £100. One example was given of friends who had their lectures cancelled and had re- calculated the price of remaining lectures at £250. There was even the consideration that students should claim money back if the lecturer cancels or doesn’t turn up.

 One of the main drawbacks raised was the perception that the university focused more on research than it did on teaching at the expense of the students. Whilst it was appreciated that lecturers undertook research it was felt that the students were ‘sidelined’ and are therefore ‘paying to be sidelined’. The research was felt to be a priority and the opening of schools in Singapore and Malaysia meant lecturers were not seen or contactable for weeks at a time. One of the drawbacks was that exam results were not returned for 5 weeks so students got

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential the ‘cold shoulder’, especially when lecturers are away. The availability of staff was therefore an issue.

 Generally, despite some grievances students felt that on a scale of 1 to 10, they rated their satisfaction with resources as 7 to 8.

 More PCs with specialist software in the school cluster  Improving RAS so students can access the specialist software remotely – at present RAS is too slow to be able to work on it.  Later opening hours on evening and weekends to access the school PC cluster (as this is the only cluster with their software).  Later library opening hours – 24 hours especially during exam periods.  Refresher information on resources and facilities a few weeks into the course would be useful rather than trying to take everything in during fresher’s week.  Improve wireless in the library during busy times it doesn’t work properly.  Block Facebook in part or all of the school PC cluster to enable people to access the specialist software. Still have Facebook in the common room or on express PCs (with no seat)  Block games site on school PC cluster.  Have express PCs – NO chair to discourage students from staying on for a long time – only for printing, checking e-mails or Facebook.  E-book available on blackboard of Principles of Naval Architecture  Free laptop loan services  Given books at beginning of degree – if this is in with the cost of tuition fees then it spreads the cost out over the lifetime of the loan.

Positive Comments

Participants felt they had good school specific facilities and got ‘value for money’ (high contact hours, good facilities)

School specific facilities were impressive – such as cavitation tunnels and towing tanks

Common room and dedicated school PC cluster appreciated and well used

Ability to mix and ask students in the years above them for help and advice was valued

Generally a high level of satisfaction

More PCs in the school cluster

Improve RAS

More group work space but within schools

Block Facebook from some or all of the PCs in the school cluster but ensure it is still available on the common room or express PCs.

Robinson to be open 24 hours, particularly during exam time

More plug sockets in the library to enable student to use laptops and ensure wireless connections working

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential Principles of Naval Architecture to be an e-book available on blackboard

Extend the opening hours of the school PC cluster

Create a standard about lecturers using blackboard

Availability of staff – feeling ‘sidelined’ as research was felt to be a priority

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential Focus Group Summary Classics

Group Profile

5 Students (5 Female)

The Classics department is located in the Armstrong building within the School of Historical Studies. Participants stated there are about 20 students in their year and due to this small cohort they did re - cognise each other and were willing to speak up, discuss and debate issues together in the focus group.

Participants stated they enjoy their subject and the lectures often felt like seminars due to the low numbers. In addition, staff and lecturers were described as being very passionate about their subject and this enthusiasm rubs off on the students. Contact hours were perceived as low – between 5-7 per week, with an emphasis on private study.

There is a dedicated classics library but participants stated it is only open for 1 hour a day. There is no common room but this was considered not to be necessary and the preference would be for the classics library to be open longer. Resources were considered to be a high priority, particular as there is a lack of school specific resources available to them therefore they depend on the spaces and resources elsewhere across the University, particularly the Robinson library which appears to be the default location for work.

The main issue for participants appeared to be the lack of awareness over what was available throughout campus. This ranged from a lack of knowledge about RAS and its capabilities to being unaware of resources and spaces and where they were located. The focus group therefore appeared to be a place where a lot of sharing of information took place which was seen as both a positive, as they felt they had learned something new but a frustration that they were unaware of what was available around the University.

Overall students appeared to be satisfied with resources although there was an obvious frustration about their lack of knowledge on availability and how to use some of the resources.

 Computers and library

 The Robinson library appeared to be the default location on campus regarding a place to study. Although Classics is based in the Armstrong building, lectures were described as being spread across campus buildings. There appeared to be no specific space for students therefore the Robinson library appeared to be their first choice of where to go and work.

 The Robinson library was considered to be a good resource, however, it was described as being busy, particularly during exam time when space was at a premium and often they struggled to find a space. One participant recounted queuing outside prior to opening time and the ‘rush’ to get a space with one person even falling over in the rush.

 There is a dedicated Classics library and participants described themselves as ‘lucky’ to have such a resource. However, they stated it was only open for 1 hour a day and on some days was even closed. In further discussion, participants said they had received an e-mail at the beginning of the year stating opening times were between 1.00-2.00pm. Students felt the limited time slot was so the books could be ‘watched’ but to have such a good resource and not allow the use of it was questioned. As such, suggestions were to make this more accessible and extend the opening hours.

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential  One participant described a dedicated PC in the library solely for printing out work - all agreed this was a good idea indicating they would like more of these.

 Facebook was raised as an ‘annoying’ issue particularly when students want to work and see others using it. However, participants used Facebook themselves and often for university work such as contacting other students so understood its uses.

 Students locking PCs and then going away for a break or for any length of time was seen as more annoying than Facebook. Whether PCs had an automatic log off during inactive periods was questioned – some stated there was an automatic log off time whilst others reported a PC had been locked in the Learning Zone for over a week.

 Students stated that they used their own mobile phones to access the internet so could check e-mails and Facebook from their phones.

 Participant wanted the Robinson Library to be open 24 hours – particularly during exam periods. This was compared with Northumbria which has 24 hour access. Some wanted early morning opening as at present the library opens at 8.30 which was felt not to be early enough.

 A lack of awareness of what was available, where resources and spaces were and how to use them was a key issue and source of frustration. This ranged from RAS and not knowing that documents saved at university could be accessed via RAS at home, to the ability to renew books on line, to accessing the Bedson cluster and awareness it was also 24 hours.

 Participants did describe a session on ‘how to use the library resources’ such as JSTOR and catalogues and this was considered one of the most useful sessions as it was also specific to Classics. Librarians had provided handouts and these had been used by friends and housemates on different courses who had not been part of such a session but felt the handouts were useful.

 ‘Your space’ was considered a good space, however, participants did not have much group work activity and so rarely used this space but appreciated its value.

 There was much discussion about blackboard as a resource and whether lecture notes should be uploaded. This was interlinked with frustrations about other students not attending lectures but being able to access notes. Participants appeared to want recognition for attending lectures - perhaps for attendance to contribute to part of their grade. However, there was also the acknowledgement that notes available are useful especially if there are genuine reasons why they could not attend lectures. RECAP was also seen as a good resource but again the same discussion applied about others having access if they had not attended the lectures. However, it was considered to be a good revision tool and the suggestion was made that lectures are recorded and those who missed the session for genuine reasons could speak to the lecturer who would give a password to access the video.

 There was no dedicated social space for students such as a common room, however, their preference was to have the Classics library open for longer and be generally more accessible. Participants did not necessarily want a common room, partly due to never having had one and therefore not missing something which they didn’t have but also their lectures are spread across different buildings and they have 5-7 hours so are rarely in the building. However, they did acknowledge that friends in other departments such as Music and Art used their common rooms all the time.

 Participants felt it was good that books in the Classics library were only for reference use rather than being on loan. This was compared to the Robinson Library which had some books on long loan therefore they could be out for a long time. The preference was to have books for a short period of time rather than not having any at all.

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential  Students also stated they bought a lot of books themselves and were building up their own library.

 Participants all had their own laptops – they would occasionally bring it in to the library if they wanted to work with books as there was insufficient space at PCs to write essays and work with books as they preferred to spread out.

 One participant suggested an initiative to connect home PC to the university network - they had heard of RAS but were unaware this was one of it’s capabilities and felt ‘silly’ for their lack of knowledge but also frustration that they were not told. Students had been e-mailing themselves work rather than accessing it via RAS.

 Participants suggested that more information needs to be provided to students – not necessarily face to face sessions but information in a handbook – similar to the course handbook but specifically for library and computers. This information should also be available on the intranet – perhaps in a PowerPoint format. Participants felt there is an assumed knowledge about PC usage and whilst most people can use a PC they may not have been taught about formatting and therefore appreciated ‘essay writing tips’ too.

 The Robinson IT help was praised – some had asked for help throughout the year with wireless issues, printing and even formatting and found the IT staff very helpful.

 Students had not seen the monitors indicating what PCs were available. A suggestion was to have this information available – if online some would access it via their mobile phones.

 Students raised the issue of having exams off campus, for example, in the Sport Hall in Eldon Square shopping centre or the Travel lodge!

 Participants described their reticence to go into places which they were unaware whether it could be used. They described still being in the ‘school’ mentality where they felt ‘intimidated’ to go somewhere if they were unsure they would be allowed. For example, they felt if there was a PC cluster in the medical school or law library then this would be specific to medics or law students therefore they would not go there. Even if there was a PC cluster on their floor in the Armstrong building in the Business school they felt they would not be allowed in and it wasn’t for their use – the same for the Bedson cluster. This information should be provided in first year about availability. Information available at the school office would be beneficial too.

 Students felt they were often unaware of what lecturers wanted in terms of essays and to improve themselves would like examples of ‘good’ pieces of work.

 Learning resources and spaces were perceived as being very important, especially as they did not have many school specific resources so used those around campus and therefore it was more important to know what was available.

 Participants stated that it was obvious that the university had been spending money with the improvements around campus. Even doing discussion groups was an indication that they were trying to improve!

 Participants felt that a multimedia experience aided learning and were impressed by some of these facilities.

 Participants felt it was ‘sad’ that the University had been investing money in resources and spaces but that most were unaware of what is available.

 On a scale of 1 to 10, satisfaction levels with resources ranged from a 7 to a 9.

 Handbook on what is available around campus – what can be accessed and how to use some resources such as RAS

 Notes and RECAP to be available from the lecturers

 Attendance at lectures to count towards their module grades

 Classics library to extend its opening hours and access for students

 Robinson Library to be 24 hours during exam periods.

 Information to be available on where there were free PCs – this information could be accessed via mobile phones

 Have access to example of good pieces of work

Positive Comments

Classics library is valued (although participants would like it to be open more frequently).

Like the short term loan and student text collection

Laptop loans is a good service

PC dedicated for printing only in the Robinson Library was seen as a very good idea ‘perfect’

Lecturers who were passionate about their subject area

Helpful office staff

Perceived effort by the University to improve the campus e.g. PC clusters, refurbished buildings

‘Your Space’ perceived positively

Session on how to use the library resources – this being part of a compulsory module

Robinson IT helpdesk

Effort by the University to improve in the campus

Increase access to classics library – at present only open 1 hour a day would like access at other times.

Robinson Library to be open 24 hours specifically during exam times

More books to be on short term loan – better to have access for a short period of time than not at all

People locking computers and going away is a big problem - throughout all PC clusters

Improve wireless in the Robinson during exam period as it gets too busy and can’t access the network

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential Lack of information on what is available and how to use resources, e.g. RAS capabilities, 24hr cluster buildings

More ‘advertising’ of spaces and resources

Remedy to the locking of PCs and then leaving them for long periods of time

Exam location – not Eldon Square Sports Hall or Travel Lodge

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential Focus Group Summary Joint Honours

Group Profile

In the second year cohort there appears to be over 40 students on the Joint Honours degree programme. The central contact for Joint Honours students is located within the SAgE faculty. Subject combinations appeared to span all faculties (HASS, SAgE, Medical Sciences, for example, biology, chemistry, accounting, maths, psychology and contact hours ranged from 16-30 – higher ones related to lab work).

This focus group proved slightly difficult to arrange due to finding a suitable time to fit timetables as students studied different subject combinations. The first attempt was cancelled due to low attendance, however, the second attempt was more successful. Participants in this group did not necessarily know each other – even students who studied the same subject. However, participants appeared to be open and honest in comments and discussions.

Joint Honours students participating in this focus group studied 2 subject combinations and within the group the subjects covered all faculties. There appeared to be no ‘home’ in terms of location for the students and they tended to feel part of one subject more than the other – often the subject with the higher contact hours and the one which tended to be better at communication. Participants therefore tended to use spaces in a building where they had most of their lectures. There is a central contact for Joint Honours Students in the SAgE faculty – students stated the co-ordinator was new in post and un- derstandably did not have all the answers to their queries yet. Many students had questions about modules options and specific degree queries - some contacted tutors but stated they did not know and didn’t help them whereas others felt their tutors would make more of an effort. However, an outstand- ing issue appeared to be that for some participants they ‘didn’t know where to start’ when looking for help.

 Computers, books, contact time with lecturers, ‘just facilities really’.

Current use of learning resources and spaces

 Students obviously have their own style and preferred ways of working, for example, some preferred to work from home, would visit other people’s houses, others may use the library. The important issue was that for different types of activities (e.g. group work, quiet study, socialising, time between lectures) students did differ in their choice of location and space. For example, for ‘quiet’ study floors 3 & 4 of the Robinson Library were used (this is where their subject books are located and it is generally a quieter space). Also the short term student text collection is in the library therefore they have to go there. For maths, students would also use space in the Herschel where most of the maths students use – often do assignments there.

 Students stated that different spaces tend to get used by different subjects due to their loca - tion. For example, the Learning Zone was often used by Chemists as it is near their teaching building (and has good cheap breakfasts!). Maths students tend to use the top floor of the Herschel building.

 If students had spare time between lectures they would generally head to PC clusters or the library – but students tend to stay on campus.

 One participant used the top floor of the union describing large tables and ‘always being empty’. However, in general, the union was not well regarded as there wasn’t ‘much to do there’. It was not considered a study place or a socialising place – ‘not sure what it’s main focus is’ – some felt its use was just to sign up for societies. The comparison was with

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential Northumbria which had pool tables, more facilities and generally was perceived as being more appealing. Students felt those using the union were mainly affiliated to societies.

 The group space (your space) in the library seemed well liked but was ‘always packed out’.

 Participants felt it was ‘impossible’ to get PCs next to each other in the library - if they wanted to work together they would go to the Herschel PC cluster as they thought there were definitely more spaces there than in the library – as long as there was no teaching taking place.

 If students wanted absolute quiet Mertz court was useful but rarely did they need absolute quiet – other participants did not realise there were PCs in Mertz court.

 Participants described a distinction between spaces in the library – upstairs was perceived as the quieter space whereas the group work space was a place to go collectively with friends

 There was a lack of availability of both space and resources in the library – PCs ‘always’ full. Private rooms were described as busy/full. There appeared to be an issue about people going to such spaces when the library opens and leaving belongings and books and then go away for hours at a time – perhaps going to lectures. The reasons given for liking private rooms is so they can eat.

 IT clusters ‘ridiculously busy’ – people get one lock it for hours and go to lectures – this was ‘annoying’ particularly if they only want to check e-mail or use a PC for a short period of time. A suggestion was to reduce log-off times to 20-30 mins (allows enough time if looking for a book).

 Some only discovered the express workstations 2 weeks ago – they liked the idea of these and would like more of them.

 Participants liked the concept of having monitors which showed where there were available PCs around campus but felt at present they don’t work very well. More information such as whether there are classes in some of the clusters would be useful.

 Facebook was raised as an issue in IT clusters. Many stated they didn’t mind when there are lots of computers but if there are only a few computers it is ‘annoying’. However, participants also acknowledged that they do often have Facebook open in the background – if they get stuck they may use it to contact friends for help. Participants did not want the extreme of disabling Facebook from all PCs – they wanted others to act with consideration – perhaps just sections of busy clusters without Facebook.

 All had laptops but don’t bring them in – some couldn’t work out wireless, others didn’t want to carry laptops around and also there is a facility to loan laptops and put work on a usb stick.

 RAS usage varies – some of the capabilities of RAS were not known e.g. the ability to access word. Participants tended to e-mail themselves documents or use a usb stick to save their work.

 Blackboard was used and well liked – especially for revision. RECAP was described as ‘really good’ and being able to listen to the lecture again helps them to understand it more. Some of the discussion boards are not activated on blackboard – this is dependent on the lecturer.

 Participants felt that they did not know what was available or where certain spaces were. In addition, many did not know the spaces by the ‘labels’ attached to spaces and some are unsure what spaces are used for.

 When participants did know about spaces, they had found out from single honours students or people they share accommodation with e.g. may use Walton library if live with students studying medicine.

 Even those studying the same subject did not know the same spaces available to them e.g. the use of space on the top floor of the Herschel.

 There appeared to be a difference between students about whether they would ‘explore’ - one ‘explored’ different spaces (and found space at the top of the Union building) whereas for others, if they were unsure they would not use a space as they felt it was not for them. Some described feeling ‘uncomfortable’ with using certain spaces and were unsure what facilities there were for their subjects. In addition the medical library was perceived as being ‘purely for medics’ and therefore they ought to go elsewhere.

 For those studying psychology, there was a perceived lack of communication from the Psy- chology department. The example of module selection was given - joint honours students found out from single honours students rather than the staff that they had to select certain modules. There was no communication and they felt they were never told anything and overall did not have much contact at all (including contact hours). Those participants thought they may have been missed off the e-mail list. There is an underlying notion that single honours students get one treatment, joint honours get another.

 Participants were aware that the co-ordination for Joint Honours degree programme is based in the SAgE faculty, however, there is rarely a need to go to SAgE – they may e-mail the office but don’t tend to go in person. As such, there appears to be no ‘home’ or specific space for students on Joint Honours degree programmes.

 Participants stated they were ‘not sure’ who to go to for enquiries for degree specific information – ‘don’t know where to start for some information’. All knew there was a co-ordinator for Joint Honours but stated that the person was new in post and therefore did not have all the answers yet.

 Participants described differences between schools – one invites students along and commu- nicates well, whereas in other departments there is a lack of communication.

 Difference in personal tutors – good and bad – some not sure what modules they can take so can’t help, others make the effort to find out.

 Difference between 1st and 2nd year in the use of spaces – 1st year many didn’t go to the library whereas in 2nd year usage of library resources has increased.

 Students have routes in their heads of the different PC clusters to try and described having spent the afternoon walking around campus looking for a free PC. Often there may be classes on and some felt nervous about going into some clusters in case it is a class.

 Participants suggested having a large notice board in the library displaying printed timetables for all computer clusters to enable student to check which is free and at what times so they can plan a route if the library is busy. A notice board should be available outside each cluster and in the entrance of all the main buildings such as the Herschel. Participants stated that there ‘not much point on having it on-line as need a pc to check’!

 24 hour clusters were wanted during exam times, and for the library to be open 24 hours during exam times –this was not just for late night opening but also to have early morning too e.g. going in for 6am before exams.

 Biological psychology was highly praised as the ‘best of all the lectures’ due to ‘everything’ being on blackboard and the lecturer using RECAP. Participants were aware of the debate that using RECAP meant attendance may fall, however, they felt this would not put them off going to the lecture and in this particular example, there is a very good attendance. Many felt it de- pended on the lecturer not the subject – and it was useful to have RECAP as a revision tool or if they had missed the lecture. If lecturers ‘just stand and read the slides out’ then students stated they could do that in half the time but if the lecturer is more animated not just reading notes then it’s more interesting – not an issue with blackboard but is with lecturer . The anti-

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential thesis to this is a chemistry lecturer who hand write notes. In Joint honours there can often be a clash for some modules so participants felt it would help if all lectures were on blackboard.

 Participants felt resources were important but it doesn’t necessarily add to the good experience – it makes the experience easier but other aspects such as friends are more important, however spaces do facilitate that. Participants felt as they progressed through University resources become more important - in 1st year they felt it was not as much of an issue but as they move on in years, it becomes more important as the work matters more.

 Having lots more PCs wouldn’t make a huge difference but having less would –participants felt it was ‘ok’ at the moment – even if more were added they would still get busy as there can’t be one for every student.

 Students with ‘space’ seem grateful for it. They would like more ‘your space’ type of areas (a social but work space – where a certain level of noise is ok) and suggested there should be one in the Old Library building as if they only had 1 hour spare between lectures it would be worth going to rather than the Robinson library as one hour is often not long enough to walk there and back.

 Your space is nice but no daylight! However, students did like it and a plus was the large plasma screens which were useful for presentations.

 Resources and spaces not necessarily part of decision making process – more about teaching and league tables – although many looked at library. If doing it now would look at those things but not back then.

 On a scale of 1 to 10, participants described satisfaction about resources as being a 7-8 – ‘just needs a few tweaks’ such as more ‘your space’ areas, computers in library and availability.

Subject specific

 Unfair disadvantage at exam time- often have exams lumped together and feel as if they have more than double the exams of other students– mainly as there is no option for course work it’s all exams

 Maths more supportive than psychology – more of an open door policy in maths – not sure whether just layout of building or staff are generally more approachable.

 Improve communication for joint honours students.  To receive exam results at the same time as the single honours students on same course  Lockers are a good idea but wouldn’t use them for laptops but would for books and uni stuff especially during exam time.  More PCs – also more in the downstairs rooms of the library  PC clusters to be open 24 hours during exams  Library to be open 24 hours particularly during exams  More ‘your space’ type areas, e.g. in the old library building  Have automatic log-off in library after 20-30 mins if no activity to prevent students logging on locking the computer and going to lectures  A board with printed out timetables on for all computer clusters to enable students to check which is free and at what times so they can plan a route if the library is busy – there should be a board at each cluster and in the entrance to some of the main buildings e.g. library, Her- schel, Old library. Not much point on having it on-line as need a pc to check!  Liked the idea of monitors indicating availability of space – they need to be in accessible spaces and have details of which have classes in and which are available.  More express workstations – with no chairs just somewhere to check e-mails, print out work.  Don’t want the extreme of disabling Facebook from all PCs – want others to act with consideration – perhaps just sections of busy clusters without Facebook.  Better communication with the departments – particularly psychology- ensure on e-mail circu- lation lists e.g. module choice etc.  Improvements to the Union.

Positive Comments

Rated satisfaction about resources to be 7-8/10 only a ‘few small tweaks’ needed.

Blackboard well liked and used

RECAP considered to be a useful resource

Group work space (Your Space in the Robinson library) well used and liked

Express workstations regarded positively

Ability to loan laptops if required

Communication from schools whose subjects they were studying to be improved – particularly Psy- chology where the students felt joint honours students may have been missed off e-mails.

Slight frustration with being ‘thrown out’ of computer clusters if they are being used for teaching.

Availability of PCs in the Robinson library frustrating – including students who lock computers and to go to lectures and annoying when need to do work and people are on Facebook.

Would like the Library and PC clusters to be 24 hours especially during exam time.

More express workstations

More PCs, for example, downstairs in library (currently being refurbished?)

More group work space

Increased awareness of what is available in general

More information and publicity about which PC clusters are available and when – to have timetables for all PC clusters outside the room and in the entrance to major building to save time walking some - where only to find it’s being used for teaching.

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential Focus group: Psychology

Group profile 10 students (female)

Overall Impressions and context The School of Psychology is currently housed within the Medical Sciences faculty; in the past it was attached to the SAgE faculty. The School’s base is in Ridley 1 building. Though the participants do share some learning and teaching spaces with other Medical Science programmes, they gave the impression that they do not feel totally affiliated with their peers studying other subjects in the faculty.

The BSc.Psychology programme attracts high student numbers, which appears to have a detrimental effect on staff-student relations in particular. Participants felt distant from many members of the lecturing staff and do not feel as if their voice is heard by the School.

Their own school apparently has few learning resources/spaces (apart from teaching rooms) of its own available to undergraduates; as such, participants utilise learning resources across the campus. Those at the Robinson Library are heavily used, but participants also use the Walton Library, as well as some of the campus-based clusters (particularly the Fell & Pass cluster). While the quality of resources is considered to be quite high on the whole, there is a strong feeling that there are not enough resources (including PCs, library books) and this is a source of considerable frustration. There is also a sense that many students are unaware of the range of learning spaces/resources across campus and are un- clear about which resources are available to them. Participants would like these issues addressed and they are open to the idea of receiving more real-time information from the university to help them make choices about which resources to make use of.

Current use of learning spaces/resources  The PC resources based in the Robinson Library are heavily used by this group of students. However, when asked which PC cluster they would tend to go to if they had a couple of hours spare, some participants said the Fell & Pass cluster (Medical School), others said the Old Library cluster, another student mentioned the Herschel cluster.

 There was a certain amount of inconsistency in the group in terms of which resources they tend to use, and even what resources exist. For example, the 24 hour PC cluster (Bedson building) and the Lawn & Naiad cluster (King George VI) was not known to some participants. There was a good deal of confusion in the group over whether the Open Access Centre was accessible by students not studying Languages. And when one student mentioned using The Learning Zone occasionally, many in the group said they had not heard of it. Further, some participants were unfamiliar with how the libraries’ student text collection operated.

 There was some uncertainty in the group about which resources/spaces are available to which students. There was some confusion over whether they were allowed to use the PC cluster in Ridley 1 or the teaching rooms in that building when they were not in use. Some of the group thought the laptop loan service was not for them to use – as one student said, “I think the problem is that we're all completely in the dark about the resources. You don't know what you're really allowed to use.” A similar sentiment was expressed about The Learning Lounge (Robinson Library). This feeling of disempowerment was compounded when other users were deemed more legitimate. In the case of Psychology students, this often meant Medical students, particularly more mature ones. They sometimes feel “intimidated” by the experience of sharing resources/spaces with Medical students. In summary, the participants seem to adopt the default position of ‘if we haven’t been told a space is for us, we assume it isn’t’.

 Most if not all participants own a laptop that they use at home for work and non-work purposes. However, they rarely, if ever, bring them to university. The main reason for not doing so is that they are considered too heavy/awkward to carry around. It is also felt that there are insufficient power sockets around campus. Another reason may be due to a lack of confidence in how to access the university’s wireless network. Finally, there is a safety issue; one student said they would not feel safe travelling with their laptop.

Reasons for the use of particular spaces/resources

 Even though Psychology students are attached to the Medical Sciences faculty, they tend to use the Robinson over the Walton Library. One of the main reasons why the Robinson Library Page 66 of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential is so popular with students appears to be its location in relation to where students live. Hence, Psychology students (along with many other Stage II students who took part in the focus groups) use the Robinson Library as a learning space a lot because many of them live in Jes- mond. It is therefore more convenient for students to work there compared with spaces located at the centre of the campus. Another, more serious point that was made, particularly by female members of the groups, related to the issue of personal safety when using facilities very late at night. The Robinson Library was preferred, for example, to the Fell & Pass cluster, about which participants said, “I'd hate to walk there on a night” and “it's really scary walking down that lane”.

 The Walton Library is used by Psychology students. One student said they worked there a lot during exam periods because it is quieter and it is easier to find a space to work. It appears that few Psychology students loan books from the Walton library, even if they did use it for revising or for using PCs on occasion. Indeed, one student had no idea the library held relevant books – “I didn't know the Walton had any of our books.”

 Another reason why Psychology students use resources based in the Medical School less than some of their faculty peers may relate to a lack of affiliation with those felt to be more tra- ditional students of Medicine. Indeed, a sense of inferiority was conveyed in some of the participants’ comments. For example: “You come in here and you feel as though, especially, like if someone was doing something on Medicine on the computer, I would not want to bother them because I think, seriously, my Degree is not anything to the standard of that, so…” However, when asked if they would rather be located separately from Medical Sciences, opinion in the group was divided. Some would prefer to be “more integrated with it and more like using more of the actual lab type things”, while others rejected the idea of a closer association.

What students do in which spaces

 Thinking of where students carry out focussed, independent study, they said they use the Robinson Library a lot – that might include the PC resources or one of the areas that has desk space (Levels 3 and 4). This is, of course, dependant on them being able to find a space/PC to work at. Some students find working at home a better option, especially as they often experience difficulty finding a space to work on campus. For others, working at home is difficult; often this is because of distractions or lack of self-discipline. As such, places like the Library act as a useful disciplining structure – “if I'm in the library I will definitely do it and I actually quite like going to the library because I actually do get my work done there.” Others prefer to be in a space like the Robinson Library’s YourSpace, even if they are revising for an exam with friends.

 This group of Psychology students said they had not done any group assignments on their degree yet, so there was not much of a specific demand for spaces that facilitate group-work. However, some participants had booked out meeting rooms in the Robinson Library and/or used YourSpace. When asked which of these kinds of spaces are better for group-work, they suggested they like the privacy of meeting rooms but would like there to be a PC resource in them.

Student attitudes towards University spaces/resources Robinson Library:  Participants believed there were simply not enough resources at the Robinson Library, especially during peak times (e.g. before/during exam periods); this includes desk space as well as PC cluster space. “I was pretty keen and went at 8 a.m. one morning, don't know why…! And I got there and there were no seats at all. That was summer exams last year and there was nowhere to sit at all.”

 The Robinson Library main PC cluster is viewed as getting so busy that some students often do not bother to go there to look for a space, simply assuming it will be full.

 Some participants felt that the Robinson Library ought to be open 24-7. This is not only for access to the PC clusters but more generally. The participants were clear that they would use university resources late into the night; indeed, it was suggested that a lot of students work best at night. This group of students is conscious that other libraries, particularly Northumbri-

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential a’s, is open 24 hours a day – “But I've been past Northumbria library at about 4 in the morning, and it's absolutely packed at that time.”

 While the availability of resources at the Robinson Library is a frustration, the participants were quite positive about some of the facilities. When they are able to book Library meeting rooms, these are considered useful for group-based studying in a quiet environment. The participants also seemed to like the YourSpace concept, though again, insufficient capacity is seen as a problem here, and this space closes too early according to these students.

 Students get annoyed when they feel resources are being used in an inconsiderate way, for example when individual students are using resources designed primarily for group use, such as the resources in the Robinson Library’s YourSpace.

 In terms of the support offered by library staff, participants were somewhat critical based on their experiences. Students described some library staff as ‘mean’.

 Library books were not mentioned a great deal. Some participants said they were very happy with the student text collection; others didn’t even know how to borrow books from this service. At the same time, a number of participants commented that there were insufficient copies of core texts in the library.

Campus IT resources:  In general, IT resources at the University are considered inadequate, not in terms of quality but quantity. There is a feeling that the situation is particularly bad during exams but students feel the constraints all year round. The students talked of “traipsing” around campus seeking out a PC, often without success, as something that happens with regularity.

 While this group have not yet had to do group assignments that require appropriate spaces for group-working, they do like to work in groups at times. And while some new PC clusters are designed to facilitate group-working, the students suggested that clusters are often too busy for this to be practical.

“You can't get computers together if you are working on something, you wouldn't be able to.” “ People will be sitting on them and then you have to wait for five people on one of the Fell/Pass ones to leave, then you've got no chance.”

 One source of particular frustration (apart from a lack of capacity) is being asked to leave a cluster when it is being used for teaching purposes. Whether students are not paying attention to timetables or whether timetables are not reliable is not clear.

 Another source of annoyance is other students who appear only to be using a PC to use Facebook (or some other social networking site), particularly when the cluster is busy and students want to get on with work. Or when the primary purpose of a PC is to access a specialist resource (e.g. a scanner) but another student is using the PC for more general work.

 Some participants had referred to the ISS cluster monitors (providing information on availability in certain clusters). They appear to like the concept but many thought the information was unreliable. There is a sense among students that, even though there may be availability in certain PC clusters, they will often assume that there will not be space, based on past experience. Enhancement of cluster availability information systems may ease this situation.

 Participants seem to like the option of accessing University resources off-campus and some students use RAS. As with other focus group participants, the low speed experienced when working via RAS is an issue of frustration. In addition, using the service is seen as confusing a lot of the time.

 Students like having Blackboard as a system for viewing teaching resources. Students also like the Re-cap facility, and were clear that this did not dissuade them from attending lectures where it is used. However, the use of the system by some staff was criticised (e.g. uploading resources ‘too late’; ‘hiding things’). The ‘discussion list’ function on Blackboard is sometimes used, though not particularly successfully. Lecturers apparently fail to answer questions posed by students and set up lists too close to project deadlines. Moreover, given that lecturing staff prefer students to use discussion lists rather than respond to personal e-mails, students think Page 68 of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential it is important for staff to improve their practice in using Blackboard. This is a source of considerable frustration for some students.

 The participants thought that Printing costs were very high at the university and that the allow- ance they get was far too low.

Difference in behaviour at different stages of the degree programme  Participants admitted to working harder in their second year; as such, they are using resources far more at Stage II.

 For those students who lived in Halls of Residence close to campus in their first year, they tended to go home in between lectures far more than they do now, when they are living further away. As such, there is more of a demand for resources, for work and non-work purposes.

 It appears that students use RAS far more at Stage II than they did in their first year of study; in part, because students work harder at Stage II and in the case of Psychology students because they are expected to work with specialist software which they can only access via RAS.

Do students have mechanisms to make their voice heard?  In general terms, students feel disempowered; they feel their voice is not being heard by their School. Some said they didn’t know how to raise an issue – “There are so many things that we'd want to complain about but we don't know where to do it.” Others felt that complaining would be a fruitless act; a “waste of time”.

 The idea that student representatives might be a useful channel for exercising their voice was greeted by laughter. And when the student voice is heard and changes are made, they tend to affect the experience of students in years below them, which is viewed as disappointing by students.

How do students value learning spaces/resources compared with other aspects of the student experience?  When students were choosing a university to study at, the question of resources didn’t really enter into the decision. It was simply expected that a university like Newcastle would have a high standard of resources. But it wasn’t until students began their studies that they could appreciate how important resources/learning spaces were in supporting their learning.

 Having been at university for some time now, students do value quality resources highly. For some, this issue is fundamentally a question of getting value for money. They expect good resources and learning support in return for the tuition fees they are paying: “That's why you pay three and a half grand each to come here, you should be getting your money's worth out of re - sources. Everyone's paying a fortune to come and you should be getting enough computer equipment and enough help.” Some participants expressed a sense of confusion as to how their tuition fees are spent by the university. There was a strong sense that they were not getting a good deal considering what they were being asked to pay for the experience. Money is being wasted on projects that students feel don’t enhance their experience, including the King’s Gate development.

 The participants’ comments suggest that, with the introduction and subsequent increase of tuition fees, they are more conscious of university spending and the extent to which they will de- rive benefit from any investment. At a more mundane level, students are also annoyed if they are expected to pay for services that are integral to their studies (e.g., printing costs, field vis- its).

What improvements would students like to see?  The students would appreciate it if there was some way that PC clusters could be arranged so that students could use them while there is a class being conducted.

 Students would like the PC cluster availability system to be improved. This might be in terms of a more comprehensive (and more reliable) list of cluster availability via the university website, or this could be in the form of a real-time e-mail/text.

 One suggestion was for there to be a PC cluster in the Ridley 1 building for Psychology students to use. Page 69 of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential

 Working via RAS needs to be a simpler and much quicker process. The students thought a basic handout/guide would be a good idea.

 The notion of having some core texts available locally (mentioned by one student) was well received by the group.

 Students like the YourSpace concept but because it is often very busy they wondered if there could be more of this kind of space around campus.

 Similarly, students like the idea of The Learning Lounge (Robinson Library) in that it has PCs and is a place where users can eat/drink, though most hadn’t been in.

 Students would like to receive timely information on, for example, lecture cancellations. Parti- cipants said it was frustrating if they travelled to university for a lecture that they later found out had been cancelled, or if they were hanging around university for a lecture later in the day that turned out to have been cancelled. Part of this issue relates to what is perceived as a lack of sufficient PC resources enabling students to quickly check e-mails. Hence, it was believed that having more express work-stations would help here. These would also be useful for quick printing jobs. Alternatively, the possibility of students being sent relevant information via SMS was well received.

 Knowledge of resources was inconsistent among group participants. In the case of IT resources, for example, students would like there to be a better way of informing them what resources are available to them. There was a real sense of frustration that participants were not advised of new or refurbished spaces. Importantly, participants felt they needed to be re- minded of this kind of information regularly; informing students of such things during Fresher’s Week, for example, was seen as inadequate.

 Ideally, in addition to being told what IT resources are available and where they are located, participants would like to be informed when resources are available and whether there is teaching scheduled, adding a real-time dimension.

 Some students think they should be able to eat and drink in learning spaces, including PC clusters. They acknowledge that cafes are quite useful but their opening hours are deemed inadequate. One participant suggested there could be a small area in clusters where eating and drinking was permitted. The greatest concern appears to be losing one’s PC if it is left while one goes to have something to eat/drink.

 Students would like more clarity about which spaces are available to them, both at a school level and on campus more generally. At the moment, students tend to assume that if they haven’t been told a space is for them, it isn’t.

 In this context, the signage of some spaces could be made less ambiguous, for example Robinson Library’s Learning Lounge – “I find it really unhelpful when it just says 'The Learning Lounge'.

 The students responded positively to the idea of being able to use vacant seminar/teaching spaces for learning purposes.

 Students do occasionally use the Psychology common room. It seems to be quite a useful space for relaxing in between lectures that take place in Ridley 1. They seem to like that there are PCs there, though there are only 3 and these are often being used. The students would like the layout of the room to be more oriented towards small-groups and to have some desks, and if possible, a room with windows.

 Reflecting on the general culture of staff-student relations, students felt this was impersonal and wasn’t conducive to positive, open communication, both during and outside lectures. Part of the problem is that the size of groups (seminar/lecture) is too big for students to feel comfortable to ask/respond to questions. One student compared their situation with that of Archi- tecture at the University, a School where lecturing staff know each and every student and there is a positive and open staff-student culture.

 Participants were very positive about the use of Blackboard in supporting learning. However, they think that lecturing staff’s use of Blackboard could be improved; e.g. more use of Recap; better use of discussion lists.

 There was some support for the idea of campus-based lockers for laptops and books.

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential Focus Group Summary Philosophical Studies

Group Profile

The Philosophical Studies department is based on the 6th Floor of the Herschel building. Although this is the subject base as staff offices are located here, participants described having lectures spread across campus and buildings and felt they were ‘shipped around the University’. As such, there is no specific space for the students such as a common room, however this did not appear to be a major issue for them. Participants had an obvious enthusiasm for their subject and course and couldn’t praise the school secretary enough – her helpfulness appears to be a huge part of their positive experience.

The participants raised the issue of location and briefly discussed the changes currently happening within the department – at present Philosophical Studies is part of CEAM – the School of Chemical Engineering and Advanced Materials. Whilst location within faculties may be an issue and was discussed (e.g. whether it should be part of HASS or retain some ‘science’ aspect) the main point students felt more passionate about was ensuring that Philosophical Studies remained a degree in its own right rather than becoming modules in Combined Studies.

Participants within the focus group all knew each other well and due to the nature of their course (‘we talk about everything with each other’) were very much willing to speak up. The group appeared to have a strong bond and friendship stating that those who turn up to the lectures tend to be good friends and this was evident within the group.

One of the main issues was a lack of awareness of facilities and resources and whilst students appreciated that their course was promoting ‘independent’ learning it would be useful to have an awareness of what was available.

The context for Philosophical Studies students is important in understanding their use of resources. Participants stated they have low contact hours – about 6-8 hours per week and lectures are spread throughout the campus ‘which can be a grind’. As such there appears to be no base location so the default seems to be their home, working in each other’s houses or for some the Robinson Library (although usage was at either end of the spectrum ranging from some who had been there a handful of times to those who knew about the different spaces available). The session on how to use the library had been cancelled in first year and never rescheduled therefore many did not know what was available.

 Participants who did use the library were mostly positive about it - the negative points were a lack of space – both in the PC cluster and during exam times there was a lack of space everywhere including the quiet spaces on the 4th Floor.

 There was much discussion about internet resources – more so than other groups. For example, discussion about using on-line resources such as Google books and e-books as op- posed to physically going into the library to loan books. As expected students had their own methods and ways of working but the important issue was that students did not always know what resources were available to them and this was frustrating. Even within the library, some participants felt they did not know what was available (e.g. student text collection) as the session on how to use the library had been cancelled and never rescheduled.

 Group work tended to be the main activity for students and they often would meet at each oth - ers houses. Some were aware of the group work space in the library but this was described as always busy as were the PCs.

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential  Participants raised the issue of Facebook in the library PC cluster. Although many described this as annoying when they needed to do ‘work’ there was also the appreciation that Face- book is used to contact other students about work. They also use YouTube and iPlayer as resources for their work but stated they would tend to do this at home.

 There is a PC cluster in the Herschel building but this is rarely used as they are seldom in that building so it does not necessarily make sense to go there.

 Awareness of resources and spaces around the university was an issue – participants stated that they had not been told about what facilities and resources were available and the session related to the library had been cancelled. Therefore there was disparate knowledge of resources and spaces ranging from some who had a lack of knowledge about the library, PC clusters (lack of awareness that the Bedson was 24 hours) RAS and its capabilities.

 The lack of awareness of spaces also raised the issue that if students were unsure what the resources were for (a lack of clear labelling or being told what was available) then they were reluctant to use it. One person explained that they had not been in the student text collection as they thought it was for graduate use only. Some had not used the medical library thinking it was only for Medics.

 Word of mouth tended to be the main way students found out what was available. For example, some had found out about RAS and spread the word - even within the focus group there was explanation between students about what it could do and how to access it.

 Participants felt that whilst ‘independent’ learning was promoted they would also value being told what was available, how systems such as RAS can be used, how to access certain resources. One suggestion would be to have a session at the beginning of each year.

 There was a very positive view of staff and particularly the school secretary – ‘I can’t say enough good things about her – she was away for 1 week and the department crumbled without her’. Students stated they felt as if the staff wanted them to do well, were available to talk to and if e-mailed would respond. The only negative aspect of the department was a lack of interaction with students in other years. Participants had friends on different courses such as dentistry where those in different years helped each other and socialised but this did not happen in Philosophy. However, participants stated this was also down to the students and they felt they were a proactive year so may try and instigate this. This may also be a way to inform other students in the years below what is available in terms of resources ad spaces.

 Labelling of spaces was often confusing. Signage and advertising appeared to be poor.

 Lack of awareness that students could use other university libraries, e.g. northern network of libraries or any throughout the country with their NUS card and a letter asking permission.

 All participants had their own PC or laptop at home but did not bring it into university – the main reason being that it was heavy and there was no need to.

 There was some discussion about the Union as a space – the general consensus was that it could be improved. It was compared to Northumbria which was perceived as a much better space. Newcastle Union was seen as very expensive compared to other venues and generally was not as appealing in terms of layout, appearance & decor, facilities, food. Saturday night in Newcastle City centre was seen as the most expensive night out therefore this was an opportunity for the union to offer a good alternative. However, there was a general feeling that those making decisions about the union were out of touch with what students want. Students were aware there were plans to refurbish the union but felt that the plans still did not reflect what students wanted and stated they should have asked the students.

 There was no specific space for students, such as a common room. Participants stated that if all their lectures were in the same building then it would be useful, however as this is not the

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential case even if there was one it would probably not get used as the are spread out across the campus.

 There was a handout booklet for their course which was a useful resource although many felt information related to referencing and bibliographies could be clearer and receive more specific guidelines.

 Many participants did not use the network space available to them and either e-mailed themselves documents to store on their home PC or used a usb stick. Part of this may be a lack of awareness of being able to access their personal space off campus via RAS.

 There was some discussion about the use of e-books and on-line resources, with others pre- ferring the ‘substance and feel’ of books and felt they were unable to read from a computer screen.

 The use of blackboard was discussed. Participants liked blackboard and wanted more lecturers to use this but understood some reluctance on the part of lecturers who stated that once information is put on blackboard it becomes the property of the University. As such there appeared to be very few lecturers who used it. Students also reiterated the argument about notes being available and a low attendance, however, they stated that the lectures are usually more than just the reading of notes. They felt the key themes and bullet points could still be uploaded - this meant the lecturers would not be handing over their full notes and people would still need to attend lectures to get the substance. Blackboard is particularly useful for those who are self financing their way through university and may miss some of the lectures.

 RECAP was also perceived as a good facility but some lectures were not recorded as they were based on group discussions and appreciated it may not be appropriate to video and re- cord as many students discussed personal issues. However, there were still some lectures which were based on notes therefore when there was no personal sharing involved these could be recorded.

 Participants stated that the Robinson Library should be open 24hours particularly during exam time and the Sunday opening hours should be later as weekends are an opportunity to do work for students.

 There was some discussion about value for money and the paying of fees. Participants compared their course to other courses and felt they do not get as much value for money, for example, when compared to medical science subjects which get more contact hours and specialist resources. Participants highly valued the staff and wanted more contact hours - time with lecturers, more lectures and discussions – not necessarily a 9-5 just more than 6 hours. Suggestions also included a dedicated philosophy library or an affiliation membership scheme with Newcastle Philosophical and Literary Society.

 Participants also suggested that their assessments be staggered. Although ‘independent’ learning was promoted more structure and feedback would be appreciated.

 There was some discussion about recognition for turning up to lectures – although opinions differed.

 An increase in contact hours – at least more than 6 hours. More lectures and face to face contact time with lecturers.  More information as to what is available (from RAs, to library to spaces)  Stagger assessments  More feedback  Want their ‘money’s worth’  Recognition for turning up to the lectures.  Affiliation scheme with the Newcastle Philosophical and Literary Society- perhaps to borrow books – to have a membership of the society.

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential Summary of Positive Comments and Improvements

Positive Comments

An obvious enthusiasm and enjoyment of their course

Highly valued school secretary

Accessible and enthusiastic staff

Strong friendship bond with other students on their course

Group work space in library a good space (although usually busy)

Robinson Library generally seen as a good resource (space was an issue)

Use of on-line resources was valued

Increase contact hours – to have more than 6-8 hours per week

Improve information about what resources and spaces are available

Increased interaction with other philosophy students in the years above and below

Consult students about the Union to ensure the plans to refurbish are appropriate

More information about referencing and bibliographies

Extend the opening times of the Robinson Library, particularly during exam times - 24 hour access

More ‘value for money’ – more contact hours

Introduce membership scheme for the Newcastle Philosophical and Literary Society

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential Focus group: English Literature and Language

Group profile 6 students (2 male; 4 female)

Overall impressions and context The focus group participants, all of whom were studying English Literature and Language at stage II, valued the fact that their school had a ‘home’ in the Percy building. At the same time, there was a clear feeling that the resources there could be improved, both in terms of IT resources and in terms of a more suitable social space, one which would facilitate increased peer interaction. This group of students appear to be high users of universal (as well as school-specific) resources, particularly those located in Robinson Library. While certain of those resources were considered useful in supporting the students’ learning, there was a broad feeling that constraints in terms of the accessibil- ity (not necessarily the quality) of universal resources were frustrating. Twinned with what appears to be a lack of awareness of the full range of campus resources available to them, these reasons may help to explain why this subject area scored quite poorly (compared to other subjects at Newcastle) in the National Student Survey 2009 regarding satisfaction with learning resources.

Current use of learning spaces/resources  When they want to do quiet, independent study, participants said they tended to do so either in the Robinson Library or at home. A quiet environment is important to some of these students. While it is nice to bump into friends in Robinson Library, some library spaces are considered too noisy and at times there can be too many distractions for focussed work. Students use the carrels for focussed study at times (Levels 3 and 4), but when the library is busy the surrounding areas can be too noisy (coughing, sneezing, people walking past, talking on the ‘phone). One student, however, said “I find I’m more distracted at home than I am in the library”. And others suggested that the lib - rary was a good place for exam revision in small groups of friends – “It’s really a good place for meeting your friends and doing revision with them and like spurring each other on.”

 English students need to work in groups quite a lot; they regularly work in study groups in prepara- tion for seminars and a range of spaces are used. Some students carry out this kind of activity in the Student Union building (Global Café) in an informal environment. Others do this kind of group- work at the tables next to Robinson Library’s reception. Reflecting student perceptions of space constraints, when asked why they would choose a very public space like this rather than one of the newer spaces (e.g. YourSpace, OpenSpace), one student said: “I think we just sort of staked a claim the first week because it can be so busy, the library, that sometimes you just take where you can first find.” Alternatively, students use the student common room in the Percy building, but there isn’t much room there, so they will often spill out into the seating areas in the corridors of the building.

 In common with most students, English students use the IT resources located in the Robinson Lib- rary quite a lot. The main PC cluster (Level 2) is seen as often too busy and too noisy to work in. Some students prefer to use the small PC cluster on Level 1, even if the absence of windows isn’t liked very much: “when you can get in there it’s really good if you want to work because it’s quiet, whereas upstairs, the floor above, people see their friends and come over ‘Hi,’ and there’s always people like going to the printers and moving and it’s like not quiet.” The other main IT resource that is used quite a lot by English students is the Old Library cluster. Students also use the small PC cluster in the Percy building occasionally. Apparently, this is often being used for teaching though, which can be frustrating for students. There would seem to be high demand for few PCs in this space. Some students feel pressured not to spend too long using the resources – “it always felt like I couldn’t stay in there very long because people would like literally stand by the door like waiting.”

 While many English students had used YourSpace, there was a lot of confusion over identifying the space during the discussion. Some students tend not to refer to this space as YourSpace; one student referred to it as “the green and pink room.” One student uses the space for reading, even though it can be quite noisy when busy: “I kind of like having a bit of noise around me. I read better in a public space than I do at home funnily enough.” Students like having the sofas to relax and read on; some even said it felt like “sort of a common room.” Others said the space was “inviting” and “modern”. Some students have used the space to work as part of a group; they like having the wall-mounted monitors so “everyone can see everything.”

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential  Finding out about the existence of YourSpace happened quite randomly for these students. When asked how they had found out about it, one student remarked: “I just wandered downstairs. I think it was purely out of curiosity.” Another said one of their tutors had suggested it might be a good place for a study group.

 Students now use the common room (Percy building) but many didn’t in their first year. Some students said they only found it in their second year.

 An incomplete awareness of learning resources is an issue for this group in common with many other groups. This applies to PC clusters – “the only library clusters like I really know about are this one [Robinson Library, Level 2] and the Old Library, but apparently there’s like loads in Her- schel Building…” None of the students had heard of the Lawn & Naiad cluster (King George VI). This lack of awareness is frustrating for some students – “ you never get told about those so you always just go to the Old Library.” Some students knew of the Bedson PC cluster, very few had worked in it. One remarked, “Why have they not told people about it though?” Another remarked: “If it’s newly refurbished, surely when something is newly refurbished that’s when you send a big email out to everyone saying, ‘this is available now.’”

 This difference in awareness also applied to other university resources. Some participants had not heard of the Walton Library. Thinking about YourSpace, one student remarked, “Until I walked through it just then I didn’t even realise it existed, if I’m honest.” Some participants had spent some time in The Learning Zone; others had never heard of it.

 There was some uncertainty in the group about which resources/spaces are available to which students. Reflecting on the Walton Library, one student remarked, “you sort of think it’s exclusive to [Medical students] and we have no access.” Another student expressed a similar sentiment about the Robinson Library’s Learning Lounge – “I thought it was somewhere official where, like, the people were in there for a specific reason.” While another student mentioned having used the Open Access Centre (Old Library building) because they were “desperate” to find a PC but they were not entirely sure if they should have been using it: “Sometimes I use … I don’t know if you’re supposed to, I’m not sure, but there’s a modern languages library in the quad and you have to say that you’re studying a language, so I said Old English last time.”

 Participants who had used the Walton Library did so more in their first year and often because it was en route to campus in relation to where they were living. As one student said – “Well not this year so much, but last year we were in…and Leazes and so like if we were walking down from Leazes towards the Medical School, so it was closer to get there rather than Robinson, like in the evenings when it was exam time, it was quite good to go into.” The fact that this student had friends studying medicine and dentistry and who had told them “it was fine for everyone to come in” may have been relevant here.

 There was also some confusion over the function of certain spaces. Some of the group had never worked there but one student had used OpenSpace (Robinson Library): “I think I used that once, but I was under the impression that it wasn’t … I don’t know if it’s like a quiet area or if it’s a study group kind of area, I wasn’t sure.” However, it is not clear that students would necessarily like there to be more direction on what activities are permissible in these kinds of spaces. At the same time, students believed it was frustrating if they were trying to concentrate and other users were disturbing them: “It’s just that it’s annoying if you want to do silent studies and someone’s just yap- ping away…”

 All participants own a laptop that they use at home for work and non-work purposes. However, they rarely bring them to university. The main reason for not doing so is that they are considered too heavy/awkward to carry around. One student does bring their laptop in when they want to write an assignment; they tend to base themselves in one of the small rooms in the Robinson Library to work. The idea of there being lockers to store laptops overnight was not particularly well received; students said they would not want to leave their laptop on campus overnight because they need to use it at home. Though they did think that students who used their laptops at university a lot might find them useful. And having a locker to store library books was seen as a good idea.

Student attitudes towards University spaces/resources  The number of PCs around campus is considered insufficient by students. This applies in particular to the Robinson Library.

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential  Working at the Robinson Library is popular with these students and many of the spaces are believed to be useful workspaces. Capacity is, however, a serious issue at times; it is apparently difficult even just to find a space to read/revise – “the library during exam time is an absolute night- mare, even just to get a spot.” Further, some students thought parts of the library (the open study areas on Levels 3 and 4) were rather cold to work in for very long.

 Those students who had used The Learning Lounge (Robinson Library) liked having somewhere to relax and a PC to hand.

 Some of the students have used the group meeting rooms (Levels 3 and 4, Robinson Library), some have not. Those who have, believed they were useful, though demand is high: “I’ve used them. At exam time you had to book literally like 4 days in advance though and it’s ridiculous but they’re good.” The small open access rooms on the same floors are also used by students occasionally and are seen to perform a valuable function.

 One student had loaned a laptop at university but the experience was not particularly positive: “They’re not very good and they’re really slow and they take forever to load and stuff so yeah.”

 Some participants felt that the Robinson Library ought to be open 24-7. Midnight is viewed as too early a closing time, particularly near to exam periods and prior to assignment deadlines when students are feeling pressurised: “If it was 24 hours, I think that would be so much better. It’s such a safety net. You’d panic less.” Students also thought it should open later at weekends. As with other focus groups, these students made comparisons with Northumbria library in this respect. Hav- ing said this, the students did concede that if they had increased access they might find they worked less efficiently.

 Students do sometimes refer to the monitors displaying information on PC availability but this information is not entirely trusted.

 Some students like the fact that they have a ‘home’ on campus – “I like having a building for our school and not having to share with somebody else.” But students certainly don’t feel a great deal of pride in it: “There’s nothing good to say about it”; “it’s quite rubbish compared to other buildings.” One area that could be improved is in terms of spaces that can facilitate more student interaction. The student common room (Percy building) is used quite a lot by English students, though there was a feeling among the group that the space was ambiguous; it was not clear what kind of activity should be taking place there. In the words of one student, “it’s a really weird room, it really gives off mixed messages…”. There are a couple of PCs in the common room but they do not facilitate Internet use which is somewhat frustrating. According to one student, “you can’t actually do any work on them.” Another said “there’s like 2 tables and a couple of chairs and that’s it, so it’s not really very inviting.”

Within this context, it is unsurprising that there was a lack of consensus in the group as to the kinds of activities that should take place in this common room space. One student was clear that this was a workspace, saying that they found it annoying when students used this space for socialising – “Some people do though and it really annoys me. I know it’s a common room but you go there to work.” Another thought this space, or perhaps another in the building, ought to provide a venue for meeting with other English students, something which is limited at the moment – “…you don’t really socialise with … like maybe if we had a better common room though, like English would be more united and you’d actually know people.” Reinforcing this message, other participants pointed out that English “is not united at all.” This appears to be partly because of the high student numbers and partly due to the structure of the programme with the module choices available to students – “…we pick all our modules, so you might meet someone in a module and never be on a module with them again.”

During a discussion about spaces in the Percy building and what facility there is for socialising with peers, the participants reflected on the entrance lobby to the Percy building (from the quad- rangle). According to them, it is “completely pointless”, it “is not used for anything, there’s just like seats all around it, but no one goes there”, “it’s a waste of space.” It was suggested that this space could be converted into a social space for English students – “just even if you had seats, like comfy sofas and like a social notice board.” One student said it would be good to have “somewhere just nice and light and somewhere comfy so you can sit down and curl up with a book.” Reflecting on the corridor/lobby spaces in Percy building where there are a number of low tables and soft seats, students said they did occasionally spend short amounts of time there but “it’s not cosy”,

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential “you feel conspicuous”, “it’s kind of a waiting room”, and “you couldn’t really spend an hour reading there cause everyone is coming through.” These spaces are apparently used more by Stage I students for work purposes (generally in study groups).

 Some students use RAS when off-campus. One mentioned they like being able to access e-books via the library website. As with other groups, it appears there is some confusion over accessing personal file space remotely. Students tend to use a USB drive or e-mail documents to themselves. One student only found out about RAS recently and thought it would be good if it was pub- licised more widely.

 Blackboard is used regularly by students and is seen as an important leaning support device. Us- age varies among staff, however. It appears that few, if any, lecturing staff in the School of English use Recap. Some participants thought it would be nice to have the option of reviewing the lecture. Some, however, thought this might discourage students from attending lectures, even though evidence elsewhere has suggested this is not the case: “I have a medical student as a friend and there’s so many times she’s gone, ‘oh I’m not going to go into this 9 o’clock because it will be pos- ted on Blackboard by 12, so I’ll just do it tonight and lie in bed and watch it, like a TV programme.’”

Student behaviour regarding issues of space and resources  As has been found in other focus groups, a source of annoyance for the participants is other students who appear only to be using a PC to use Facebook (or some other social networking site), particularly when the cluster is busy and students want to get on with work – “Yeah, if you just walk ‘round and everyone is on Facebook and it’s like, ‘No, I need to do work!’ Go home and use Facebook!’” While most students will admit to having Facebook open while they are working, there seems to be a distinction in students’ minds between occasionally checking the site and spending extended periods looking at content – “I think it’s fair enough if you want to check your Facebook or whatever but don’t spend like years trawling through photos or whatever, which some people do, like you can see them click, click, click and that’s really annoying when you need a computer.”

The Facebook issue is further complicated by the fact that students admit that the site can, at times, be a learning resource. Participants sometimes use Facebook as a way of communicating with other students about work (as well as for social reasons) in addition to e-mail. Interestingly, one student pointed out that “people are more likely to check their Facebook more regularly than their email, so it’s more of a guarantee to get in contact with that person.”

 As well as Facebook use being an annoyance if students want to carry out work, it is also frustrat - ing if students are unable to find a spare PC to carry out quick, routine tasks – “Most of the time you need a computer just usually to print something off or check the email and it would be like a 2 minute affair and if you go round the whole of the computer cluster in Robinson library and you can see about half the people on Facebook and you’re like, ‘I just need it for 2 minutes to print something off!’”

How do students value learning spaces/resources compared with other aspects of the student experience?  Good learning resources appear to be an expectation for these participants: “It’s not something that I feel we should have to worry about”; “it kind of should be something you take for granted.”

 Certainly, having high quality and accessible resources is seen as important to this group. Be- cause English students have relatively few contact hours, one student pointed out that they require resources a lot of the time to support independent learning.

 When these students were choosing a university to study at, the question of resources didn’t really enter into the decision. However, one student suggested that their feelings towards another university’s library did play a part in choosing not to study there: “Manchester was like … their big selling point about the library was, there’s so many books, the biggest collection ever and you go in this horrible, claustrophobic and I decided I really don’t want to go here. That was just based on the library.”

 When asked where they do most learning, students replied “seminars”. They clearly appreciate the more personal contact that the seminar facilitates as well as the fact that the seminar situation concentrates the mind, forcing one to prepare and make a useful contribution.

What improvements would students like to see?

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential  In common with almost every focus group participant, these students would like there to be more capacity in key learning venues such as Robinson Library – not only PCs but also spaces such as meeting rooms (large group and small) – as well as extended opening hours.

 While there was some disagreement in the group as to the desired function of the existing com - mon room in Percy building, there was broad agreement that the School should have a nicer space where English students can socialise. The students called to mind the “lovely common room” the Music School has, and the one in the Medical School. The former apparently has “lots of comfy seats and computers, but they’ve got vending machines and there’s like a big board up with all the social things.” When asked if they would like something similar, the participants replied: “Oh I’d love that, it would be so nice”; “It would be really nice.” At the same time, the students be - lieve there simply isn’t room in the Percy building for such a space, even though they would like to have a space that facilitates more peer interaction.

 Students would like there to be more IT resources in the School. The PC cluster that is there at the moment is seen to be small, busy, and not appropriate for extended periods of work.

 Knowledge of campus resources was inconsistent among group participants. The participants would appreciate some awareness-raising efforts, particularly regarding IT resources, which are always in very high demand, but more generally. Twinned with this point is the need for clarification about what resources are available to all students. While it was conceded by the participants that they may not be particularly active in seeking out resources, it was felt that they should be made more aware: “That might just be us being lazy and not going out and finding out about stuff, but I think you really need to be told really.”

Students were less clear about how the university ought to communicate this information; perhaps a resources map of some kind, perhaps on the university website, or on Blackboard. While it may seem like a good idea to display this kind of information on the university homepage that automatically greets students when they log on, it appears that some students do not pay much attention to this page at the moment – “I don’t really read it; I usually just click on the links, like to email or Blackboard.” Students thought e-mails may be a better way of disseminating advice about new resources, for example, or even The Courier student paper. Students responded positively to the idea of SMS messages to inform them of cluster availability in real-time. The use of multiple media seemed to be the consensus.  The idea of there being more express work-stations (to facilitate quick tasks) was well received by these students, as it was by many other focus groups.

 Participants would like the ‘Facebook’ issue tackled though it is not clear how this should happen. Express workstations may be part of the solution.

 There would appear to be a need for clarification on the use of the RAS service.

 Students would like to see wider use of Blackboard in the school, including the use of Recap.

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential Focus group: Architectural Studies

Group profile 10 students (8 male; 2 female)

Overall impressions and context The number of students studying Architecture has risen considerably over recent years and with this has come space and resource constraints. Staff in the School are very aware that this situation is a concern for many students. Certainly, that concern was reflected in this focus group – students spoke of their frustration at the shortage of studio space and learning resources. Equally frustrating are a number of other IT-related issues, such as inadequate profile space, the high cost of printing, and the insufficient number of scanners. This context may help to explain why this subject scored quite poorly (compared to other subjects at Newcastle) in the National Student Survey 2009 regarding satisfaction with learning resources. At the same time, participants expressed very positive opinions about certain aspects of their experience of studying Architecture at Newcastle. These include having a positive, open relationship with many of the School’s tutors, having a School that they can access whenever they want that is equipped with high quality (if insufficient) resources, and having a working environment where there is a culture of mentoring and guidance among peers.

Current use of learning spaces/resources  Architectural Studies students, certainly during Stage II, spend a lot of their time in the School of Architecture. In terms of IT resources, students tend only to resort to using universal PC cluster resources on campus if there is no available School resource. However, the Robinson Library PC resources are used (particularly for printing) and other PC clusters such as that in the Bedson building are occasionally used (including for revision purposes).

 There was a certain amount of inconsistency in the group in terms of awareness of what resources exist in the school and across the university. This applies to, for example, the scanning resources in the School of Architecture. It also applies to some library spaces and The Learning Zone. Additionally, some students felt that certain resources (in this case The Walton Library) were not available for their use.

 While all the participants use the Robinson Library, it seems to be used less than it is by students studying many other degree programmes. They were less familiar with learning spaces such as YourSpace than the participants of some other focus groups.

What students do in which spaces Design studios:  Architectural Studies students spend a great deal of time in the design studios. They appear to be the default space for working and generally hanging out. Some students said they often have their lunch in the studio; others prefer to get out and have a change of scenery. Studios become particularly well-used prior to a project deadline, when at times students can spend all night there – “We practically live in there at times.”

 While design studios tend to be quite vibrant spaces, students do sometimes use them for carrying out work that requires focussed concentration if they are not too busy. However, some students tend to do this kind of work at home or in the Robinson Library, which can act as a useful disciplining structure.

Student attitudes towards University spaces/resources Design studios:  On the whole, participants spoke favourably of these spaces and the resources within them. They spend an awful lot of time in studios and as such, feel a sense of ownership over them. At the same time, participants felt that there was insufficient space and resources in the studios to ac- commodate the number of students. Part of the problem is insufficient PCs – “That’s probably the main problem about the studio, that there is 90 of us but as we counted there are maybe 30 com - puter spaces.” As a consequence of these space issues, some students work from home or in the School’s PC cluster

 Another dimension of the capacity issue is not that there are insufficient drawing boards but that working with them tends to take up a lot of studio space which restricts space for others. Often,

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential the use of drawing boards means that neighbouring PCs are put out of action: “The drawing board covers over a computer that’s not being used. But because there’s a drawing board there the computer ends up going behind and you just can’t get to a computer, even though it’s not being used by anyone. So you could use it, you just can’t get to it because there’s a drawing board in the way.

 There is a general perception that conditions get better as the degree programme progresses and the space/resource constraint eases somewhat in later years. One student said, “I think in the third year there’s a lot more space; a lot more desks, a lot more computers. According to another student, “Architecture has just expanded whereas our space hasn’t expanded.”

 Stage I Architectural Studies students spend most of their time in a different building (Building Sci- ence), which is viewed as adequate by students. The design studios there apparently don’t have IT resources so students use the PC cluster in the Architecture building. Indeed, participants suggested that the ground floor PC cluster has evolved into a key workspace for Stage I students because, as well as lacking PCs, it is cold. Also, when participants were at Stage I, they tended to live in Halls of Residence and would use local IT resources more than those on campus. However, they have different demands upon them at Stage II and require more facilities (i.e. workspace, IT, specialist software, printing and so on) as well as peer support.

 The lighting in some studio spaces was raised as a concern by one participant (flickering light). It was suggested that better quality lighting and/or table lamps might be a solution.

General IT issues:  While the overall quality of the IT resources available to students (particularly those in the School of Architecture) are viewed positively, there are a number of specific IT issues that are a source of considerable frustration.

 One of these issues relates to there being insufficient personal profile space. Students argued that the files they work with are very large (particularly compared with many other subject areas) and they often reach the limit of their profile space. Moreover, ISS are seen as “really stingy about giving the extra space.” This situation means that students often rely on personal USB drives which they recognise as being a risky option; they would prefer to have the security of the university back-up facility.

 Another issue relates to what are seen as extremely high printing costs. Even though, when weighed up against the many positive aspects of studying Architecture (for example the amount of quality tutor contact time) it may seem like a rather insignificant issue, printing costs was a subject of real annoyance for the participants. One student said “I hate paying for printer credits”; another, “when you’re a student, when money’s really tight, it’s really annoying.”

 A further School resource issue relates to there being insufficient scanning equipment. Parti- cipants explained that they have to scan documents quite a lot for project work and believed there was a shortage of scanning facilities. One student said they use the Robinson Library services for scanning (and printing) because it is more reliable, though there is a personal cost implication. There appeared to be inconsistency in participants’ awareness of scanning resources in the School and across campus.

 Students very much appreciate the IT support they get from a student representative, and for those who have sought help from them, the school technicians, though there is a general feeling that more support is needed, particularly as project deadlines approach and outside normal business hours (when there is no school technician to help). It is important to remember that, at the same time, the participants gave the impression that there was considerable peer support facilitat- ing an exchange of skills.

 Architectural Studies students are regular RAS users. Many students complained about the low speed they experienced when working via RAS. The frustration of working via RAS is exacerbated by the fact that these students often work with specialist software (e.g. Photoshop, ArchiCAD) and large data files.

 Students tend to use the university’s (rather than personal) software applications. Some specialist software is made available for students to download (e.g. Student AutoCAD) but they generally prefer to use university resources for speed and security reasons.

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential General School-based space/resources:  It is recognised by the participants that the School is acutely aware of the space constraints. In this context, participants acknowledged that it was useful that project deadlines were staggered according to year. This system allowed Stage II students to utilise a range of spaces – “Say a second year project is coming to its deadline, there normally isn’t any other year groups who have a project to hand in. So we can sort of spread out throughout the Architecture School so we can use the computer clusters downstairs.” Part of this spreading out includes occasionally working in classrooms where there is space to draw and get on with quiet work when they are not in use (i.e. generally outside 9-5).

 Students often work late into the night prior to project deadlines and they value greatly the fact that their building is open 24-7 to provide them with workspace. One comment illustrated the value attached to this issue: “if that ever got taken away from us we would be seriously angry.”

 The ‘Kofi’ bar in the School is liked by the students and is used mainly for socialising/eating. It is also used for discussing work in groups (mainly by Stage I students). The bar is seen as a useful place to bump into members of staff – “I work there on a Wednesday afternoon and you do get to talk to quite a lot of the tutors because they come in and you have a chat with them about the pro - ject or if they have magazines, you end up talking about what’s on the front cover of the magazine and stuff.” The ‘Kofi’ bar also works as an information exchange, which is particularly useful given the character of the degree programme – “Everything changes so often, on the design project, that you’ve kind of got to keep your finger on the pulse, you don’t want to get behind. And also, being a creative course, it’s quite disorganised; like lectures change and no-one quite knows what’s going on all the time. So the coffee place is quite a good place to come and go and say, ‘Have we actually got a tutorial tomorrow at 2.00pm or has it been changed?’” Also, students value the fact that the bar is a student-run initiative and that staff use it as well; this is seen as creating “interde - pendency” within the School.

 It appears that these students have a good relationship with tutors on the whole. They have quite a lot of contact time (both formal and informal) and they value this – “There is a lot of support; the whole tutorial system and the materials that we get are really good.” There is a feeling of collegial - ity between tutors and students – “a lot of the time you speak to your tutor by a first name and it’s just that equality I think is really nice about it.” One of the student representatives was present in the focus group and they felt that the staff-student committee system worked well as an occasion to voice student concerns even if there was often no obvious solution to the issues raised.

 One issue that causes some frustration for students relates to the variability they experience in terms of tutor feedback. One student explained that “sometimes you rotate each week with a different tutor, which does get a bit annoying because it’s so subjective that each tutor has a different idea.” Another believed that “they all contradict each other so sometimes it does get a bit confusing, if you see too many tutors.”

 Students have ‘personal’ tutors in addition to ‘design’ tutors and while relations with the latter group are perceived in positive terms, some students felt distanced from their personal tutors. One student said their tutor would not know their name; another said they did not know who their personal tutor was.

 Participants generally appreciate having the Workshop in the School. They appreciate the support of the technician very much – “he’ll give you that extra bit of time and help you out.” However, the students thought it would be nice to have more than one laser cutter.

 Overall, students are appreciative and think it is vital to have a school where they can spend a lot of their time (working, socialising) – what was dubbed “Architectural HQ” by one student – and they recognise they are more fortunate than many other subject areas (described as “homeless” by one student) in this respect. Non-School based resources/spaces:  Students are not major users of non-School resources and spaces, in part because they have access to many of the resources that they require in their own School, even if these are deemed insufficient in many respects. Also, because these students do a lot of non-work activity in the School studios and other spaces, there is less need for them to find alternative settings.

of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential  Of the University’s universal resources, the Robinson Library is perhaps the most widely used. However, at peak usage times students tend to avoid the library as a workspace – “Unless it was around the exams and then I wouldn’t bother; you’d have to go at 9.00am.”

 The issue was not pursued at length during the focus group, but in keeping with students in other groups, there was the feeling that the Robinson Library could have later opening hours. Because Architectural Studies students have the option of accessing their own School 24-7 there may be less demand for this than in other groups.

 In keeping with other groups, some participants find the library is useful for “forcing” one to do focused work.

 Some students use the ‘Architecture’ meeting room located in Robinson Library but by no means all of them. As Stage II students do not have a great deal of formal group projects to carry out, this space is not used very much.

 The PC resources at Robinson Library are used by the students. They tend to view the cluster space as somewhere to work for short periods of time – “I think the Robinson has got more of a feeling that you go in there, get something done, print it out and leave.”

 Participants were not very familiar with YourSpace. But those who had spent time there liked it for social working. One student said they had used and liked the experience of working in the Learn- ing Lounge – “I quite like working where I can see other people around me, I don’t like to be just on my own, it was nice to just see people walking past whilst you’re learning.” Other participants did not really see the point of the space.

 Like most students, these complained about the lack of relevant texts in the Library. Also, the stu - dent texts service was viewed in rather negative terms by some – “I never really bother. If I can’t get it out on long loan then I don’t bother.”

 Although the issue of ‘local’ versus ‘universal’ was not posed to participants in direct terms, it seems quite clear that these students appreciate having local resources/spaces. Participants recognise the consequential benefits in terms of inter-student and staff-student collegiality, informal support from peers, and a general sense of ownership and responsibility.

 In terms of the extent to which learning resources/spaces were a factor in students’ decision to choose to study at Newcastle, it would seem that they did not play a significant role. For some, the city was important – “I wanted to come to Newcastle because of the city and it just happened to have a pretty decent Architecture School”. For others, the high ranking of the department played a role in their choice-making. However, the Architecture School’s building and location on campus appear to have been of some relevance in choosing Newcastle – “We’ve also got the best building and the best location in the university pretty much.”

Student behaviour regarding issues of space and resources  The shortage of space and resources in the School leads to territorializing of space. According to one student, “if you don’t get in early then you don’t get a desk, because people set up their own space and that’s it.” According to another, “some of the time you have to put a bit of paper on your monitor. I don’t do it but some people do, saying, ‘my computer’.” This situation was described as “ridiculous” by another participant.

 Another source of annoyance is students who use resources without having received appropriate guidance. The example of using A1 printers was mentioned; apparently a lot of students had not attended the relevant training “and it just buggered up the printers because people were doing it all wrong.”

 While inconsiderate behaviour is seen as a problem in the School, at the same time there appears to be a positive culture of mentoring/guidance that is valued by students. According to one student, such is the nature of the programme, “we all know each other”. They described the studio as “such an interesting place, because we teach ourselves almost how to be architects and everyone is constantly talking to each other, shouting across desks: ‘How do you do this?’, ‘How do you do that?’, ‘Can you help me with this?’”

What improvements would students like to see? Page 84 of 85 Summary – Private and Confidential  Ideally, students would like there to be more studio space, including more PC resources. At the same time, they are sympathetic to the fact that there are restrictions on space in the School.

 Students are less sympathetic about the situation with certain specific IT issues. First, students believe they should be allocated more personal profile space than other subject areas where there is less demand for disk space. Second, they would like printing costs to be considerably cheaper. Students are aware that students of Architecture elsewhere (Northumbria for example) incur vastly lower printing costs; it is believed that printing at other Architecture Schools is subsidised. Third, students would like there to be more scanners in the School and for them to be better maintained.

 Students would like to have extra power sockets in design studios to plug laptops in if they are not able to find a PC to work at.

 There appears to be a need for clarification in terms of what training is available and what training required for the operation of specialist resources. With regard to A1 printing, for example, it was said, “it is trial and error, but then at the same time it shouldn’t be like that, it should be that you’re taught how to use it I think.” On a connected issue, students would like there to be more s upport available for helping with resource use (e.g. printing, scanning and so on) outside usual business hours.

 Students would like working with RAS to be considerably quicker. Alternatively, it would be useful if certain non-School based IT resources, such as those at Robinson Library, could provide availability to the specialist software that Architectural Studies students require, even if this applied to just a few PCs. Though students do understand that it may not be practical for them to occupy a PC for extended periods – “They say in the library you’re not supposed to work there 24-7, and to sit there with your AutoCAD while somebody’s waiting...”

 The possibility of using the Kofi bar as gallery space to display their work was mentioned by some participants.