student participation in quality scotland

report of the higher education mapping exercise of student involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes report of the higher education 1 mapping exercise of student involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes

DUNCAN COCKBURN 2

report of the higher education mapping exercise of student Contents

Summary 4

A Note on Terminology Used 7

Introduction 8

Methodology 9

Findings 10

What is meant by involvement? 10 Student representation on and at institutional committees 10 Student representation on and at faculty-level committees 13 Student engagement at the departmental or programme level 14 Informal links between student representatives and institutional staff 17 Student involvement outside the committee structures 19 Mechanisms in place to respond to student views 21 Views and opinions expressed about student representation 22 Support and training provided to course representatives 25 Support and training provided to other student representatives 27 Incentives and recognition for student representatives 28 Engagement of students in national quality mechanisms 30

Conclusions: Strengths, Weaknesses and Areas of Development 32 3

Questions 34

Acknowledgements 37

involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes Summary

What is the sparqs able to use informal channels that students were generally Mapping Exercise? effectively. It is, in the following involved in committees at the report, assumed that this is what is “faculty-level”. In the majority Over the course of the 2004-05 meant when the higher education of institutions the extent of this academic year sparqs undertook sector wishes to see student involvement was defi ned by the a series of interviews with involvement. faculty and not the institution. The institutional staff and students in range of committees that students order to chart how students and What happens at the therefore sit on across Scotland their representatives were involved institutional level? varies signifi cantly depending on in institutional quality assurance whether a given faculty sees it as and enhancement processes. In Across the 21 higher education appropriate to only have students doing so, the aim was to provide institutions surveyed, there on the main Faculty Board or on information to the higher education appeared to be broad agreement sub-committees instead or in sector on the strengths and on the type of committee students addition to. Different institutions weaknesses, as well as identifying should sit on. Across the sector, had different mechanisms for practice which other institutions in students were less likely to sit appointing representatives at this the sector may consider adopting. on staff development and audit committees. At newer institutions, level, some relying upon their students were less likely to have students’ associations, others What is meant by drawing their representatives involvement? students sitting on the majority of Court or Governing Body from amongst the course In a study of student involvement committees. Generally speaking, representatives within that faculty. 4 in quality assurance and students fi nd sitting on, and It is clear that, at this level, the vast enhancement process in the making a contribution in, Court or majority of institutions struggle Scottish higher education sector, Governing Body meetings harder to engage students and, even in it is fi rst necessary to consider than any other committee they sit the institutions that have student what is meant by involvement. It on. In terms of attendance and representatives who attend and was found helpful in interviews engagement, the survey has found engage at institutional committees and discussing these results to that around a third of institutions there is less engagement at the talk about involvement on three have diffi culties with representatives faculty level. different and ascending levels: that don’t attend meetings. A further third of institutions have What happens at the • Opportunity: students are students that attend but don’t departmental level? presented with the opportunity engage with the processes. A fi nal to attend meetings and events; Due to the fact that interviews third of institutions have student took place with one member (or a • Attendance: students take up representatives who attend and small number) of institutional staff those opportunities and attend are engaged in the processes. then it was not possible to get a meetings and events; It is clear that the diffi culties in fully-accurate picture of student • Engagement: students not engaging students do not solely lie representation at the departmental only take up the opportunities with the personalities of the student level. The survey thus relied presented by the institution, but representatives concerned, but are upon the general picture of what are able to make an effective also due to features and practices happened at the departmental contribution. that institutions themselves have level. In order to get more accurate control over. picture, individual mapping Engagement can be summed exercises would be required within up as a state whereby student What happens at the institutions – sparqs knows of faculty level? representatives are more active at least one institution doing this than passive, able to be proactive Across Scottish institutions there at the current time. Generally rather than simply reactive, and appears to be an expectation speaking, students can make report of the higher education mapping exercise of student representations at the department and in more negative terms than institutions students are present on level at a staff-student liaison in institutions where there are disciplinary committees – although committee, or equivalently named strong informal links. Informal links there appears to be signifi cant body. The level in the department between students’ associations difference between institutions at which this takes place varies and senior management are in the number of occasions between, and within, institutions; considerably better than the links the actual committee meets as such committees may in some between students’ associations opposed to an institutional offi cer departments meet at multiple and middle management at the making a disciplinary decision. Six levels within departments. Staff- faculty-level, which is seen as more institutions have student members student liaison committees might distant and in more negative terms. on complaints panels and four be organised at the programme, institutions have student members year or module level. Generally Internal subject reviews on appeals panels at various levels of the appeals process. This is a speaking there was little All institutions with internal role considered to be delicate even representation at departmental subject review procedures have for the institutions that do have committees beyond this liaison or mechanisms for meeting students student members on complaints consultative committee, although to discuss learning and teaching and appeals committees: only one this was something which many matters. Ten institutions had institution allows for non-sabbatical institutions were in the process of considered the Funding Council’s offi cers to be panel members in re-visiting when our interviews took suggestion that institutions should such hearings. place. A minority of institutions consider having student members stated that they had diffi culties in of their review panels positively. Other mechanisms getting students to come forward Who this student member is varies 5 as representatives. signifi cantly between institutions, A number of institutions use other with some institutions limiting the mechanisms to involve students The importance of informal reviewer to a sabbatical offi cer, within their quality assurance and links others extending it to include enhancement processes. These A key factor in increasing both faculty-level representatives and include: others simply utilising course attendance and engagement at • Student attendance at annual representatives. Support and committees are informal links away day for University training provided by the institution between student representatives Management Group; and institutional staff and offi cers. for this student member is • Focus groups; Engagement in processes is even generally limited to a briefi ng about greater where informal links are the procedures used within the • Student forums; institution. One institution allows initiated by the student offi cers as • Senior staff appointments; well as the institutional staff. It is students from the department notable that students who initiate being reviewed to produce their • Quality Enhancement own structured submission. Conference; these informal links are much more aware that the committee • Online conferences; structures they participate in are Disciplinary, complaints • Use of societies; only part of the processes at work and appeals within the institution. At institutions It should be noted that the • Annual Course Monitoring which commented upon the low following information relates only Exercise. attendance and engagement of to disciplinary, complaints and student representatives at the appeals hearings against students. Further details of how certain institutional level, it is notable Students are not involved as institutions involve students in these that student representatives panel members in staff disciplinary processes can be found within the see their relationship with senior hearings at any Scottish higher main body of the report. By and management as more distance education institution. At most large, the institutions that use these involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes alternative mechanisms of student students are not involved: current less involved because there are involvement are disproportionately systems work better at engaging fewer systems and processes to the newer institutions in Scotland. certain types of students. pick up their views and opinions on their teaching and learning. Types of student involved On the whole, students likely to Postgraduates are less likely than and not be involved are undergraduates undergraduates to be involved, The survey has picked up and full-time campus attendees. and research postgraduates less information on the type of They are more likely to be in their likely than taught postgraduate student likely to become a course honours years than in their fi rst two students. Modes of study that are representative or other student years of a degree. There appears not full-time are likewise less likely representative within Scottish to be a good balance between to comment on their teaching and higher education institutions. men and women. Likewise, there learning. There is some evidence This information should be treated appears to be a good balance that suggests that international with care as it is an anecdote of between “mature” and “young” students do not, on the whole, anecdotes. However, as most students, although there may become course representatives institutions acknowledged a similar be more mature students than – although there are some notable profi le, it seems to be a generality proportionate to their numbers exceptions to this, as well as some that might hold true. One of the acting as course representatives attempts to encourage international reasons this generalisation appears in the fi rst and second year of student involvement. like it might hold true is that there degree programmes. Those least are structural reasons why some likely to be involved are generally 6

report of the higher education mapping exercise of student A Note on Terminology Used

At the various higher education institutions, each with its own history, structure and procedures, there are differences in terminology used denoting roughly the same activity or function. Where possible – in order to avoid confusion – throughout this report the same expression is used for all institutions. Beneath is a note on the terminology used in this report and what the term is used to cover.

Course representative is used in a generic sense and covers various terms including “programme representative”, “class representative”, “member of the student parliament” and even “MER representative”.

Department the departmental level is recognised as being called the “school” in some institutions and in other institutions as a being a subject unit.

Faculty is used to describe the middle level of institutional management, between the institutional level committees and the subject-disciplines. It is recognised that at some institutions this level will be called the “college” or the “school” in place of the term “faculty”.

Staff-student liaison committee this term covers staff-student consultative committees and variously named equivalents.

Students’ association has been used throughout this report as a generic term for the student representative body within an institution. Of the student representative bodies in Scotland there are 15 students’ associations; 2 students’ representative councils; 3 students’ unions; and a Scottish Committee 7 (belonging to the Open University Students’ Union).

involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes Introduction

When the Funding Councils initially mechanisms, which many that in the future sparqs will be funded sparqs, the service was institutions might usefully refl ect able to work with institutions and asked to undertake what was a upon. Equally, this report suggests students’ associations across called a “mapping exercise” of that, across the higher education Scotland in various projects to how students were involved within sector, institutions struggle in start to redress some of the areas institutional quality assurance and similar areas at involving students of weakness this report highlights. enhancement processes. This within their various mechanisms. Equally, it is appreciated that while report represents the outcome of this report highlights approaches work undertaken with institutions The report contains two main that some institutions have adopted and student representatives from sections. The fi rst aims to give to involving students, it does not between May and November an overview of the places where dwell in depth on these as case 2004. (A more detailed account student representatives can studies. It is planned to produce a of the methodology involved feed in the view of students to further publication before the end can be read opposite.) an institution’s decision-making of the academic year that deals processes. It attempts to indicate with these “case studies” in further This report represents the fi rst what is working in most institutions depth. attempt to extrapolate strengths and where the sector – as a whole and areas for development of how – needs to develop areas of current In the meantime, it is hoped that students are involved in quality weakness. We highlight methods the current report will provide assurance and enhancement of involving students that might be institutions and students’ mechanisms across Scottish higher considered unique or rare. The associations with material to allow 8 education institutions. In its very second section gives an account them to refl ect upon how they nature it represents a generalised of how students are involved within might further improve and refi ne snap-shot of student involvement. each further education college in their systems for involving and The focus of the current study Scotland. It can be found on the engaging students in commenting is on student involvement at an sparqs website. upon their learning experience. institutional level, and it is clear from discussions with most of those It would be misleading and Finally, the author of this report who were interviewed as part of the wrong to give the impression would like to extend his warm exercise that variations between that this report can provide any thanks and appreciation to all departments or schools within “magic solutions” to some of the those who assisted with the task of institutions are large. Nevertheless, diffi culties that both institutions assembling this report, particularly this report shows some variation and students’ associations fi nd to those individuals from institutions between institutions in how they involving students more fully within and students’ associations who engage students with their quality discussions of the quality of their so generously gave of their time in assurance and enhancement learning and teaching. It is hoped responding to his enquiries.

report of the higher education mapping exercise of student Methodology

The fi ndings and conclusions of In early September 2004 sparqs engagement with the institution, its this report are based upon research held a briefi ng day for the staff staff and its processes. This report that sparqs has conducted into of students’ associations. This draws on 17 completed surveys how students are involved with all opportunity was used to brief out of a possible 23, representing 21 higher education institutions in attendees as to the interim results 17 students’ associations from Scotland, extending from May until and distribute a questionnaire to 21 institutions.1 For information, November 2004. the staff to garner their opinions a copy of the survey used with of student engagement in their student representatives can be In light of the low levels of institution’s quality assurance and found at Annex A.3. responses from institutions to a enhancement procedures. It is scoping survey in September 2003, disappointing to note that out of For an organisation that has it was decided to conduct the a possible 15 responses only fi ve a remit to support student majority of the research on a face- responses were returned despite participation in quality assurance to-face basis with individuals from repeated reminders. A copy of the and enhancement activities, across the sector. These interviews questionnaire used can be found in it might seem odd that we fell into three phases of work: Annex A.2. conducted the institutional interviews before we conducted • a series of semi-structured Between October and November the interviews with student interviews held with staff of 2004, a survey of student representatives. The research institutions; representatives was undertaken. was conducted in that order as • a questionnaire to the staff of The survey itself was based around it was the institutions’ processes students’ associations; issues that had been raised in that were being discussed. We the interviews with staff from the delayed conducting the survey of 9 • a survey (either conducted in institution, and on the basis of student representatives until late person or by phone) of student a workshop with seven student October and November so that representatives. offi cers held at the NUS Scotland we would be interviewing student Higher Education Day at the start representatives with a broadly The fi rst series of semi-structured of October 2004. On all but two similar length of offi ce who had interviews were held with staff (or occasions, this was conducted probably all experienced one full groups of staff) in all 21 higher with the sabbatical offi cer from cycle of committee meetings. education institutions. These each students’ association who interviews were held between May had responsibility for representation Information presented in this report and July 2004. This work forms of student views to the institution. has been supplemented by a brief the basis of institutional profi les A number of factual questions literature search focusing on student found in Part 2 of this report. were asked about the structure of representation, and institutions’ and The issues which were raised the students’ association, and the students’ associations’ websites. In with these contacts were agreed answers have informed the second addition some reference has been with members of the sparqs section of each of the institutional made to QAA institution audit and Steering Group, and were shared profi les contained in Part 2 of review reports. It is worthy of noting with the individuals concerned this report. The remainder of the that the literature search showed up before the interview (see Annex survey was treated confi dentially very little information on the topic of A.1). Although the focus of these and aimed at exploring student student representation with higher interviews was on the nature of representatives’ perception of their education. the processes used within the institution, questions were also asked about the perceptions of the institution of its student 1 This difference in the numbers of institutions and students’ associations (21 and 23 representatives in general. respectively) is caused by the fact that the Scottish Agricultural College does not have a single student representative body, but rather three separate students’ representative councils for its three campuses. involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes Findings

What is meant by • able to be proactive rather Student representation involvement?2 than simply reactive; i.e. do on and at institutional the student representatives When this report was initially committees raise issues not on the agenda commissioned, one of its aims was Every institution has student or even submit items, with or to highlight student involvement. representation on the most without papers, to committees; The word involvement is, however, important of its institutional and potentially misleading and does committees: Senate and Court not suffi ciently distinguish between • able to use informal channels (or their equivalents). Broadly what happens on paper and what as well as the “formal” speaking there appears to be happens in practice. Students committee meetings (this is a near universal agreement on the may be involved in institutional discussion that will follow later). types of committees of Senate processes because they have the and Court that students should be opportunity to participate; they Given the methodology of this represented upon. may even be involved through report, it is not possible to chart attendance at various meetings or the precise nature of student Who does the representation on events; but surely a better measure involvement in any institution. Is institutional committees? of involvement is engagement in there a student representative who would not see themselves All but three institutions have the processes. During the course as an engaged and effective sabbatical offi cers; in the vast of our interviews with institutional representative? How does an majority of cases, the main staff, it assisted us to approach the institution know whether its representative at institutional idea of involvement as threefold: 10 students are engaged and effective committees is a sabbatical • Opportunity (students are when it has limited experience of President. In some cases the presented with the opportunity student representatives from other President could rely upon a Vice to attend meetings and events); institutions? President who sat on some of the institutional committees, although • Attendance (students take up this individual often also had other those opportunities and attend The threefold conception of responsibilities, for example the the meetings and events); and involvement as opportunity, attendance and engagement is students’ association welfare • Engagement (students not one to which this report continually activities or oversight of societies. only take up the opportunities returns. It is sensible to make It should be noted that a growing presented by the institution, this clear from the outset of the number of students’ associations but are able to make an fi ndings. It may be that individual now have a specifi c Vice President effective contribution). readers – familiar with individual to deal solely with representation institutions – will fi nd these of what could be termed learning How then is engagement to be categories of assistance in making and teaching or quality assurance recognised? How does anyone sense of this report’s fi ndings and and enhancement activities.3 measure what an effective student useful in relating them to their own This has led to this sabbatical representative is? It may be helpful institution. Vice President in some respects to determine whether the student assuming membership of many representative is: of the committees that at other • more active than passive; institutions would be within the i.e. volunteers an opinion on items rather than waiting to be 2 With thanks to the participants of a workshop run by sparqs at the 2004 Stadia called upon or waiting until it Conference held at Liverpool (22nd-24th November) for pushing the author to be more is suggested that it might be precise in his thinking. appropriate to have a student 3 These Vice Presidents are variously titled from Vice President (Academic Affairs); Vice President (Education); Vice President (Education & Careers); and Director of viewpoint; Representation. report of the higher education mapping exercise of student President’s remit. In the academic faculty representatives who were on how engaged and effective year 2003-04 two institutions offi cers of the students’ association representatives are. However, (the University of Glasgow and who sat on institutional committees it should be recognised that the the University of St Andrews) had – this group was joined by two of institutional staff spoken to were such a position and from 2004- the associations who had non- often willing to make comments 05 another three institutions have sabbatical offi cers who also had on attendance and engagement such a position (the University faculty representatives sitting on of representatives at institutional of Edinburgh, the University of institutional committees. At the committees. Aberdeen and the University of remaining institutions where there Dundee). In two out of fi ve of were non-sabbatical members At the level of the institutional these instances, this was a new of institutional committees, committees, the sector divided into position which had resulted from these were either appointed three (roughly equal) groups which extra funding from the university. from interested volunteers could characterise the involvement In the remaining students’ from the students’ association of students at these committees: council or from amongst the associations, the “new” position • representatives who provided course representatives. Rarely had resulted from a redistribution engaged and informed were these individuals seen as of duties between the sabbatical contributions and felt able to important in terms of wider student offi cers. At the institutions that do raise issues, submit papers if representation at institutional not have such a Vice Presidential they felt the occasion merited level by either institutional staff or position there was generally broad it, and volunteer an opinion student sabbatical offi cers, being support for such a position at most regarding the items on the hardly mentioned in discussions. institutions – the exceptions tended agenda; 11 to be the smallest institutions. It is clear, however, that at a couple of institutions individuals in • representatives who had to At most institutions students these roles had made a signifi cant be encouraged by a variety other than sabbatical offi cers impact on the committees and, in of devices to give the student sat on institutional committees. some cases, this had provided a perspective; Generally speaking, the number of spring board to engagement and • representatives who did not committees which had this non- effective representation where attend committee meetings, sabbatical student membership these individuals then became and where the representative was relatively small compared sabbatical offi cers. These cases was nominated by the students’ with the number of committees seemed to be the exception rather association, no name was given that sabbaticals sat on. In eight than the rule, although some to the institution. students’ associations there institutions commented that it was was a non-sabbatical offi cer often helpful to have more than one These groups in no way – generally an individual who representative attending committee corresponded with different sat on the students’ association meetings as this meant they were types of institution within the executive committee – who had more likely to engage and that sector – whether ancient, old, responsibilities over “Education” a plurality of opinion would be former-polytechnics or even more or “Academic Affairs”. Sometimes represented. recent HEI creations. Although, this individual was a non-sabbatical generally speaking, ancient and old Vice President, in other places a How effective and engaged are universities dominate the fi rst group, student representatives? convener or offi cer. Frequently the remaining two groups contain these individuals sat on institutional How then are these opportunities a genuine mixture of institutions. committees, varying from just one taken up by student It was clear in the minds of the to just short of ten committees. representatives? We have institutional staff interviewed that At a further four students’ previously noted the problems the level of involvement depended associations there were designated inherent in applying judgements upon the individuals and their involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes personalities. However, it was to comment on, or assist in, institution were always certain what equally clear that institutional staff formulating proposals. the rationale was for excluding could produce a general picture of student representatives. This student involvement which fi tted Committees that student guidance note also made clear into the three groups above. This representatives do not sit on the Council’s expectation that second fi nding, true across the institutions should “have a clear The Staff Development Committee, sector, suggests that involvement is policy for student involvement in the Audit Committee and the not defi ned entirely by the individual, quality processes, including regular Nominations Committee were but by something linked to the meetings between institutional the committees least likely to management and the student institution itself, whether that be have student representatives representatives to review this”. the institution’s management or its sitting on them. On the whole, When asked, the individuals we cohort of students. students were represented on a spoke to from each institution were balance of “Academic/Senate” generally uncertain as to how this Student representatives’ and “Non-academic/Court” expectation had been addressed experience of sitting on committees. At fi ve institutions within their institution. This pattern University Court was there a tendency for student was repeated by the student During some scoping work representatives not to be present representatives we surveyed. It on the types of questions it at some of the largest and most should be noted that this response would be useful to ask student important Court committees, was not necessarily refl ective of representatives, it became clear for example the Planning and/or the institution’s policy. It could that some students experienced General Purposes Committee. highlight a lack of awareness of an diffi culties in representing students 12 approach by individuals. on the University Court – or This “footnote” to student involvement at the institutional equivalent – and sometimes its Question: What can institutions level raises an issue regarding committees. With this in mind, do to encourage their cohort of how it is agreed how student during our survey of student students to become involved in representatives should be involved representatives we asked a representing the views of their within institutional structures. As question regarding the experience fellow students to the university part of an update on the quality of sitting on the University Court. management? In some cases the individual who enhancement framework, the sat on the University Court was the Funding Council sent out a circular President and not the sabbatical letter in January 2003, which Question: What can institutions offi cer that we spoke to as part included an Annex consisting change about their own of the survey. Out of those we of “Guidance to institutions on procedures to encourage surveyed who sat on the University student representation in quality student representatives to Court, a small majority said that processes”.4 Within this guidance engage further with the business they found the experience of sitting it is stated that where it is decided of institutional committees? on the Court different to sitting that student representatives on other committees. Students should not be involved in particular Question: How can institutions often commented that on Court decision-making “the institution ensure that students on the there was less discussion of the should have a clear rationale as Court or governing body of the issues than at other committees. to why student representation is institution feel more comfortable Some student representatives not appropriate”. It is not clear about their position? – generally those that sat on fewer that individuals working within the Court committees than others – commented that they found the atmosphere of Court daunting 4 SHEFC, Circular Letter HE/04/03: An enhancement-led approach to quality assurance: and that they had little opportunity progress report, Annex C (23rd January 2003). report of the higher education mapping exercise of student Where institutions asked their middle level that would interest Question: Is there clear students’ associations to student representatives. A couple agreement between institutions and between management and provide the members of faculty of individuals went so far as to student representatives on the committees, often this person suggest that academics on these type of institution committees was either directly or indirectly committees often had diffi culty that it is inappropriate for elected to some offi ce that had engaging. From some of the students to sit on? responsibility for representation students spoken to it would appear within that faculty area. In three that students sitting on faculty Student representation institutions representation at the committees need a perspective on and at faculty-level faculty level was broadly linked of the different departments or committees with representation at Senate. programmes running within the Almost unanimously institutions faculty as well as knowledge of the At the faculty level students reported that it was a struggle to institution’s policy and direction. generally have opportunities to engage students effectively at the Some institutions (University of contribute in some place with faculty level. Where representation Paisley, Glasgow Caledonian the faculty committee structure. was provided by the students’ University and the Robert Gordon Involvement varies from full association this was less of an issue. University) have attempted to membership of all the main address this issue by placing on the committees within faculties, to In considering student involvement agenda an item entitled “Student membership on one committee in terms of opportunity, attendance Issues”. This was a place students (either the main Faculty Board or and engagement, it must be could raise issues and where staff Learning and Teaching Committee, acknowledged one individual, or looking for a student perspective 13 or their equivalents). At this level it even a group of individuals, working could place items. The student is much harder to make meaningful at the centre of an institution is item was placed early in the comparisons between institutions, unlikely to be able to make agenda as it allowed students to as in many institutions the extent authoritative comment. It was clear leave afterward if they so wished. It of student representation varies that a number of institutions could would appear that this had resulted between faculties within the same make reasonably authoritative in increased engagement by institution. comment on how effective and students at this level. engaged student contributions to One way to distinguish between the faculty level were. However, in Question: How can institutions institutions is to examine how four institutions the institutional improve the attendance of student representatives are contact referred the author of this student representatives at selected to sit on such faculty report to other individuals within the faculty-level committees? committees. There are interesting faculties. differences: Question: Should faculty • some institutions asked their Signifi cantly, all institutions representatives be chosen students’ associations to commented that faculty level from amongst the course nominate an individual to be a engagement by students was representatives or through the member of the committee; lower than that at institutional and departmental unit level. A students’ association? • other institutions drew upon the clear majority of institutions found representatives from amongst it hard to engage students, and the class representatives from Question: Is there agreement attendance by students was the units within the faculty; on the type of faculty-level generally low. A variety of reasons committee that it is appropriate • a couple of institutions were identifi ed for this. Some and inappropriate for student combined both the approaches respondents suggested that there representatives to sit on? above. might be little to report at this involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes Question: Can the format Autonomy meant that sometimes so that students studying at remote there were staff-student liaison campuses could engage in the and/or business of faculty- committees at the department process. The Open University in level committees be amended level, the subject level (if different), Scotland, in particular, used on-line so as to encourage student the programme, the year level conferences, sometimes organised representatives to make a (sometimes as honours and by the students’ association, to better informed and more non-honours or with separate gather general student opinion on useful contribution to such undergraduate and postgraduate courses. committees? committees), or even single module level. Indeed it was reported that The role of the course Student engagement a number of departments at some representative at the departmental or institutions might have a hierarchy At all institutions apart from one, programme level of staff-student liaison committees. the course representatives were Representation at the departmental elected each year (generally where Structures to involve “non- level of institutions was generally representation was organised traditional” student groups through a staff-student liaison around the programme) or even committee. Although every It is clear that some institutions every half session or term (where institution reported that it had endeavour to include all different representation was organised some form of statute that ensured modes of study within their staff- around the module). Only at one every department had at least one student liaison committees and institution – the Royal Scottish staff-student liaison committee, course representative systems. Academy of Music and Drama 14 only a handful of institutions had A couple of institutions reported – did the course representative detailed guidelines. Of those who that they covered travel expenses remain in post for the duration offered an opinion on whether it so that students on placement of the programme (generally was a good idea to have detailed could attend staff-student liaison four years). This was due to guidelines or not, half saw it as committee meetings. A small the recognition of the greater a strength and half saw it as a number stated that they made experience that the representative weakness. Those who felt detailed attempts to hold staff-student could gain through successive guidelines were a weakness said liaison committees for their years reviewing and commenting distance learning programmes upon the learning and teaching that not having them allowed for when, and if, there was a they engaged with. Under departmental autonomy which residential element on the course. this arrangement there was a meant departments could structure There was one course which had mechanism by which students a system that best met their separate representatives for home could replace their representative needs. Those who felt detailed and international students, where if they were dissatisfi ed with guidelines could be a strength the students in each group were of their performance. It was clear were concerned that without them equal numbers, as the programme from discussions that the role of course representatives might leaders had discovered that these individual course representatives potentially be doing very different different groups of students had could vary considerably between things resulting in confusion as to had different experiences of the institution and even within the role of the representative and course.5 A couple of institutions departments. At most institutions the purpose of the staff-student mentioned that departments within it was up to departments whether liaison committee. their institution had held on-line students chaired or took minutes staff-student liaison committees or at staff-student liaison committees, This large degree of autonomy used video-conferencing facilities and only one institution (Queen given to individual departments makes any attempt to analyse the structures of these committees 5 Anecdotal information from a break-out group at the Responding to Student Needs across the sector meaningless. conference held in Glasgow on 8th June 2004. report of the higher education mapping exercise of student Margaret University College) most institutions suggested that These fi gures tend to suggest expected students to chair this was a group that tended not that students’ associations also meetings of the liaison committee – to become course representatives. have diffi culties in engaging with although they could opt out of this At the majority of institutions it was the less traditional students on role if they wished. At another two admitted that distance-learning campus and, indeed, are well institutions, student representatives students, part-time students and aware of the fact. If anything, commented that in the majority of postgraduate students are not these fi gures may overestimate the cases students chair the committee well represented by the traditional ability of students’ associations to meetings within their departments. course representative system. communicate with these groups. At fi ve institutions the students’ Over the last few decades the In fact, the student representatives associations’ council is made up numbers of students from these were also asked to explain why of all the course representatives groups has been increasing and it they had rated themselves as they and therefore an additional would appear that both institutions did. These answers suggested role of representatives at these and students’ associations struggle that although the question was institutions is to attend students’ with fi nding individuals who will framed so that the communication association meetings. Only four give a representative voice to these was to be two-way, the majority institutions had a clear remit for a groups. of responses were based on the course representative and these ability of the students’ association tended to be at institutions which Communication with “non to communicate to students in also produced their own course traditional” student groups these groups and not necessarily representative handbook. As part of the survey of student to receive information from them. representatives, students’ Signifi cantly, the Dearing Report’s 15 How effective and engaged are associations were asked to rate sole recommendation to students’ course representatives? their ability to communicate with unions6 was to include these In assessing how effective and various groups of students. They groups within their structures and engaged course representatives were reminded that communication to represent better their opinions are, it must be borne in mind that was to denote a two-way to university staff. Although in the most interviews within institutions exchange of information. Student two years following the publication took place with individuals who had representatives were asked to rate of the Dearing Report, a number institutional-wide responsibilities. their ability on a sliding scale from of projects were embarked upon Given this, many reports about one to fi ve; where one represented to help students’ associations to the take up of opportunities at the badly and fi ve represented tackle this perceived weakness, departmental level are anecdotal excellently. The results were as this issue still presents itself as a and the respondents readily follows: signifi cant problem for students’ acknowledged this fact. Group of students 1 2345 Generally speaking, representative Ability to communicate with part-time course representatives 5351– systems appear to work reasonably well for full-time on-campus Ability to communicate with postgraduate course representatives 25322 undergraduate students. Some institutions reported no problems Ability to communicate with mature students in general 1337– in getting mature students to come forward as representatives; Ability to communicate with distance-learning students in general 671–– others reported that this was an under-represented group. Ability to communicate with students on placement in general 3614– Again, patterns of involvement by international students varied between institutions – although 6 In England, students’ associations are commonly referred to as students’ unions. involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes associations and – through them and offi cers than offi cers from the teaching issues. Institutions report – for their parent institutions. science subjects, a fact that they varying degrees of success on attribute to science students having achieving this aim. Are certain subjects more likely more contact hours and therefore to engage students within their being unlikely to utilise the students’ How do institutions know systems? association for lengthy periods whether the system is working at during the day. a departmental level? Institutions were asked whether there were any correlations Staff were asked how the institution Mechanisms beyond the staff- between the subject studied knew how effectively mechanisms student liaison committee to and involvement within student of student feedback were working utilise course representatives representative structures. Most at a departmental level. Nearly institutions said that they were A number of institutions provided every respondent said that the unaware of, or unable to suggest, other structured opportunities for annual monitoring mechanisms any correlations: in most subject course representatives to engage were a device for faculty or areas the staff-student liaison in feedback. At a small number institutional oversight of the staff- committee worked. A minority of of institutions (the Robert Gordon student liaison committee system. staff at institutions commented University, Queen Margaret Roughly half of the respondents that students from certain types University College, University of pointed to their internal review of subjects did involve themselves Paisley and Glasgow Caledonian mechanisms which would highlight in representational structures University) every year a number of – admittedly only once every more than others. Two institutions course representatives are invited six years – how effectively the 16 commented that they noticed that to an event with the Principal or department sought and dealt with arts and social science subjects with a deputy with responsibility student feedback. rather than science subjects for learning and teaching. In a appear to have an easier time couple of institutions (the University Other institutions commented fi nding representatives. Two small of Paisley and the Robert Gordon that they had more detailed institutions commented that it University) this is replicated at arrangements in place, or had used was easier to fi nd representatives faculty level at more frequent in the past mechanisms to assess from the cohort of students that intervals. These meetings are held how effective student contributions were studying more “traditionally without agenda and are usually were at the departmental level. academic” subjects than from social occasions with cheese and As part of its annual monitoring those studying more vocational wine or lunch available. In a similar exercise, Heriot Watt University subjects. Four institutions stated manner, Edinburgh College of Art asks programmes to comment on that they found students from their have a Principal’s Committee for how they encourage feedback from professional or traditional courses Student Affairs that consists of different groups of students, for more ready to come forward their SRC President and a select example distance-learning students, as representatives. Student group of course representatives. part-time students or international representatives were asked These can be forums where issues students. The University of Paisley whether they knew of any areas outwith the usual purvey of a staff- collects information centrally on where there were diffi culties in student liaison committee could be how each of its schools involves getting students to come forward, raised, for example accommodation students within its processes, from and without exception they all said for overseas students, late night staff-student liaison committees that they were unaware of any study areas and recycling at the to focus groups, and whether or in their institution. Staff at NUS institutions. One of the reasons not there have been any surveys Scotland and at some students’ for these additional forums is to or other mechanisms used. The associations commented that over allow the focus of attention at staff- results are then circulated to all the years they have seen more student liaison committees to be schools with the intention that arts and social science sabbaticals directed more towards learning and School Boards discuss and report of the higher education mapping exercise of student implement practices they think and engagement at formal Question: How can institutions suitable. The Robert Gordon or structured events such as and students’ associations fi nd University’s Quality Assurance and institutional committees tends to out how effective the course Enhancement Committee conduct be greater. Where these informal representative system actually is an audit of each of its departments’ links are initiated not only by the across departments? arrangements relating to staff- institutional staff, but by student student liaison committees every representatives themselves, three years. Glasgow Caledonian Informal links between attendance and engagement is University recently undertook student representatives greater still. It appears that informal an audit of staff-student liaison and institutional staff links allow student representatives committees which looked at a It is clear that there is a link to understand more about the sample of minutes and an audit trail between the level of attendance institution’s priorities and individual including how issues raised, where and engagement in representative committee members’ agendas and, dealt with, and how information systems on the part of students therefore, operate more effectively regarding outcomes was fed back and good informal links between within the committee themselves. to students. staff and students. Most staff of institutions and student Student representatives’ views Question: Can institutions and representatives stated that the on informal contact with the institution students’ associations make course representative system the role and remit of course generally works and commented Generally speaking, student representative clearer to all that it did so usually because of representatives appear to think connected with the system? good relationships between staff they engage more often than 17 and students at the departmental institutional staff through informal level. mechanisms. This in itself is not Question: How can institutions surprising: an individual would and students’ associations Before further consideration of this only be fully aware of their own involve distance-learning issue, it would be helpful to attempt informal contact and perhaps of students, international students, to defi ne the difference between the fact that it was happening postgraduate students and “formal” and “informal”. “Formal part-time students more with others. Due to the nature links” are taken to be regular effectively within their student of informal contact, no individual committee meetings and other representative structures? would be able to comment with structured engagements or annual any authority about frequency or events; “informal links”, on the other constructiveness. Nevertheless, Question: How can hand, include any communication, when asked to give concrete institutions and students’ be it meetings, phone calls or examples of informal contact, associations encourage the exchange of e-mails between student representatives gave few students to communicate student representatives and that were immediately classifi able with their representatives institutional staff, outside of these as learning and teaching or quality and representatives to better structured events. assurance and enhancement communicate with each other? issues. Issues taken up with Institutions’ views on institution management tended informal contact with student to be about wider issues, such as Question: How can institutions representatives strategy, estates issues, support and students’ associations use Clearly, where informal links services, or issues concerning the the resource held in their course exist (particularly between students’ association itself. representatives in other ways those responsible for learning to feed back information on the and teaching issues and the Earlier in this report student wider student experience? registry functions), attendance representatives’ involvement involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes in institutional committees was broken into three groups: those Words highlighted to Senior Deans of Faculties that did not attend; those that described interaction with Institutional & Heads of attended but did not engage; and senior management Management Departments those that attended and engaged. Useful 8 2 Comparing the institutions in each of these categories it is clear Worthwhile 7 1 that those in the attended and Participative 7 engaged category were generally the institutions whose student Valuable 7 2 representatives cited examples Partnership 6 1 of informal contact based around learning and teaching issues. Intelligent 5 1 Those institutions where there were Engaging 5 problems in getting the student representatives to attend were Equal 5 1 generally the institutions where Full of potential 4 students’ associations had little Objective 4 1 informal contact with the institution or wanted more of it. Practical 4

Enthusiastic 4 18 As part of the survey of student representatives, the students were Hard Work 4 1 given a list of words and asked to Fun 3 1 choose which best described their dealings with institutional staff. In Attentive 2 most cases student representatives Stimulating 2 distinguished between words that described their interaction between One-sided 2 1 institutional management and Well-meaning 2 1 faculties and departments. Too short/basic 2 2

As can be seen from the table Patronising 2 2 opposite, student representatives Challenging 2 3 largely choose positive rather than negative words to describe Tense 1 1 their relationship with the senior Indifferent 1 1 institutional management. This fi nding however does not Satisfactory 1 1 prevent our noticing that, at a Ineffective 1 2 small number of institutions, student representatives viewed Frustrating 1 3 their relationship with the Disorganised 1 3 senior management in largely – or solely – negative terms. In a Strained 3 number of instances during the Radical 1 survey of there were sometimes signifi cant differences between Intimidating report of the higher education mapping exercise of student how student representatives Student involvement their reviews and therefore the viewed their relationship with outside the committee nature and the level at which senior management and the structures the review takes place varies deans of faculties/ heads of between faculty, department, Engagement in internal subject departments. Where this subject or programme depending review difference was mentioned by on the institution. Analysis of this the student representatives All institutions under the procedures dimension of internal review is themselves, they were asked to currently involve students in their beyond the scope of this report: indicate the words that describe internal review processes, usually suffi ce to say that the level of the their relationship with deans of through meetings held as part of review appears to have no bearing faculty/heads of department. For the review. There would appear to on whether or not students are this reason, the two columns be considerable variation between involved as members of review cannot be directly compared institutions in the time spent panels. with one another, but they do meeting student groups. A couple indicate that the relationship of of institutions organise surveys At three institutions the student sabbatical offi cers with the “middle of students to provide the review review panel member is expected management” of institutions is panel with additional information on to be one of the sabbatical offi cers. seen more negatively than that the student learning experience in At a further four it is a student of the senior management. the area reviewed. One institution nominated by the students’ is currently exploring ways in which association and so can be either Question: How can institutions students might be further engaged a sabbatical or non-sabbatical in the process of internal review. student offi cer. Three institutions encourage informal contact from 19 their student representatives, select the student reviewer from particularly at institutional level? In the Funding Council’s circular volunteer course representatives. letter to institutions regarding Four of the institutions pay the internal review, institutions were student member for the work they Question: How can students’ asked to consider whether it would undertake, usually at the same associations encourage informal be appropriate to have student rate as the external member of contact with institutional members of internal review panels.7 the review panel; one of these is management? At the time of writing, 10 institutions an institution where the sabbatical out of 21 currently have student offi cer is expected to undertake members. In one institution the the role of student member. One Question: How can informal internal review procedures have institution – one of the four that contact between students’ a wide remit to cover issues pays student reviewers – expects associations and management beyond learning and teaching the student member to write a at the faculty level be made matters, and the student member short section of the report. more meaningful? is invited to attend the learning and teaching elements only. At Borrowing a technique from Question: How can informal one institution when the issue of a the English review model, the contacts and working student member was discussed, University of Stirling allows the relationships be embedded so the student representative present student members of the staff- that they continue when student felt that it would be inappropriate student consultative committee representatives or institutional for a student member to attend of the department under review managers are replaced? review panels at their institution. to produce a written submission, Institutions are given a degree of following suggested guidelines autonomy in how they conduct and with assistance from an

7 SHEFC, Circular Letter HE/04/03: An enhancement-led approach to quality assurance: progress report, Annex B (23rd January 2003). involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes administrative offi cer within the committees. At Glasgow the member of the University Registry. faculty appeals committee has Management Group, the no student members, but the President of the students’ Engagement in disciplinary, senate appeals committee has a association is invited each year complaints and appeals student observer and the court to the group’s annual away committees and panels appeals committee has a student day. Interestingly, this was one At every Scottish based higher member. At the University of of the examples mentioned by education institution students are Stirling, a different position applies: a student representative from on the Disciplinary Committees, students do not sit on the faculty another institution as exactly appeals panels, but do on the although there is a large variation the type of activity that it was senate appeals panels. In addition in how frequently these panels inappropriate for student there is a University Appeals meet and whether they act as representatives to engage in. Committee responsible for setting committees, or function in practice The student representative policy relating to appeals within the as appeals committees. One concerned was not aware that institution, and this committee has students’ association reported this took place when they made a student member. At all except that they were aware that their their comment.8 institution was holding Disciplinary one institution – the University of Aberdeen – the student member of Committees without the student • Focus Groups (Bell College the appeals or complaints panel is members being informed of its of Technology): as part of the one of the sabbatical offi cers of the meetings. internal audit mechanisms students’ association, generally the checking for compliance and President. 20 At the majority of institutions effectiveness of policies and the involvement of students in procedures, focus groups of Engagement in “miscellaneous” the complaints and appeals students are held in subject mechanisms extends to student offi cers or or programme areas. These staff of students’ associations A number of institutions have other focus groups run alongside the assisting in the preparation of ways in which they engage their traditional staff-student liaison complaints or appeals statements students in what could be broadly committees and are conducted and representing students at the termed quality assurance and by individuals from outwith the subsequent hearings. enhancement procedures. A word school the students belong of caution: this report is based to. The college fi nds that often upon interviews with members of Beyond this traditional this mechanism provides richer staff who, in all likelihood, are not representational involvement in the information on the student aware of all the mechanisms used working of appeals and complaints experience than the staff- in their institution. This selection panels, six institutions have student liaison committees. of examples does not therefore students as members of panels at Equally it fi nds students keener amount to an exhaustive list. some point in the process. Two to participate than to become However, it may be taken as an (Glasgow Caledonian University course representatives. and Napier University) only have illustrative one. Other institutions have a less students on their complaints formalised system of focus panels. Four institutions have The following are ways in groups often involving the students sitting as members on which institutions were giving course leader using one of the their academic appeals committees an opportunity to student representatives: timetabled sessions to review in addition to their complaints the course with students. panels. Both the University of • Annual away day for Aberdeen and the University of St University Management • Student Forums (Edinburgh Andrews have student members Group (University of Abertay, College of Art and the Scottish on their senate and court appeals Dundee): although not a Agricultural College): one of the report of the higher education mapping exercise of student advantages of being a small • Online Conferences (the Open Question: Are there further institution is the possibility University in Scotland): the means by which students can of holding open meetings of Open University, and sometimes be involved in internal subject students at which the Principal its students’ union, organises reviews, disciplinary, appeals and senior staff speak about online conferences through the and complaints committees? developments in the institution e-mail system where students and respond to questions from can discuss thematic issues or students, usually every term. students on a given course can Question: Are the In the case of the Scottish discuss matters specifi c to the “miscellaneous” mechanisms for Agricultural College this takes course. generating student involvement place on a campus by campus • Use of societies (the Open at some institutions transferable to other institutions? basis. University in Scotland and • Senior Staff Appointments University of Dundee): a couple (Glasgow School of Art and of institutions pointed to the role Question: How do these the Royal Scottish Academy that subject-specifi c societies “miscellaneous” mechanisms of Music and Drama): a could play in the curriculum. relate to existing student number of the ancient and At the Open University, new representative structures? old universities include a courses to fi ll gaps in coverage student in the interview panel had been suggested by student Mechanisms in place to that selects a new Principal societies and acted upon by the respond to student views and Vice Chancellor. At both institution. At the University of Bearing in mind the rich resource 21 Glasgow School of Art and Dundee, some subject societies that institutions have in countless the Royal Scottish Academy provided representatives to departmental or faculty staff-student liaison committees of Music and Drama, when committees. across the range of their provision, senior appointments are made it is valid to ask whether institutions within the various schools, • Annual Course Monitoring are able to capitalise upon this undergraduate students are Exercise (University of St wealth. A number of questions present when staff make Andrews): as part of the annual were asked during our interviews presentations and their course monitoring exercise with staff at institutions to fi nd feedback is collected. the university holds interviews out how institutions used this with the head of each school • Quality Enhancement resource. The results indicate that and its director of learning and almost universally the information Conference (UHI Millennium teaching, based on the previous gained through staff-student Institute): the institute holds years’ reports. The small liaison committee meetings was a quality enhancement interviewing group includes not merely primarily, but almost conference every September, the President or the Director of exclusively, for the individual and, in addition to a student Representation of the students’ department’s use. The following being a member of the association. It looks at what considers how the institution organising panel, a student will action the school has taken to centrally uses the information from be asked to give a presentation redress any issues highlighted. these committees. on students’ views on one of the enhancement themes. In Question: What are the benefi ts Through systems of annual preparation for this a detailed of student involvement in internal course monitoring, institutions had survey is undertaken by the subject reviews, disciplinary, mechanisms allowing concerns students’ association with appeals and complaints from the staff-student liaison students on their experience of committees? committee to be addressed assessment within the institute. by either faculty or institutional involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes committees. While major concerns is it standard practice for contacts Question: Do staff-student would therefore present themselves from these sorts of centrally liaison committees have a wider provided services to come to staff- through annual course monitoring, role in feeding back information minor concerns addressed locally student liaison committee, although about the student experience might not. Given this, many in some departments in some to institutional and academic institutions acknowledged that institutions this does happen. management at the centre of the it may not be possible to see institution? whether students from different Institutions appear to have well- departments or different faculties developed systems that give Views and opinions are raising similar issues. Further, departments feedback on the expressed about student as the staff-student liaison teaching within a department. representation committee is based around the Information collected by the centre While individuals from institutions department, it is almost never used of the institutions tends to be for were not asked specifi c questions to collect information on specifi c quality assurance purposes: if regarding how they considered issues of concern to institutional there are major concerns then student representation per se, management or committees. This they will be the focus of attention during the course of interviews type of information was usually by institutional management or it became clear there were committees. Few staff-student assembled through additional common themes arising in many liaison committees appear questionnaires and by convening institutions. This section explores to be used as a resource to separate focus groups. Generally, some of those themes, and while systematically fi nd information 22 this was greeted with a feeling it concentrates on some of the desired by senior management that students were expected to reservations of the representative complete too many questionnaires or to feed back information on system, these remarks should be and that convening focus groups academic support services. set in the wide context to which was a laborious task, which they belong. Almost universally resulted in few students turning up Question: How can we respondents commented that they to participate. encourage staff-student liaison welcomed student involvement committees to discuss learning in their mechanisms, whether One concern expressed by as well as teaching? directed at providing feedback or many individuals was that staff- participating in decision making, and that both of these functions student liaison committees often would be less rich without student discuss teaching to the exclusion Question: How can institutions better report back to students involvement. Nevertheless there of learning or student needs. on how they have responded were clearly issues which made Because staff-student liaison to student feedback and institutions and their staff wonder committees are departmental they comment at staff-student liaison whether the representative system are concerned with the delivery committee meetings? is working effectively. of teaching and learning within that department or on a given Are student representatives programme or module. Perhaps Question: Should staff-student representative or not? an area for development at many liaison committees discuss One of the major concerns of institutions might be the lack of broader issues of academic those interviewed was whether involvement of individuals from success, for example the impact student representatives were various academic support units, of support services on the themselves representative of such as the library, the computing teaching and learning within a their peer group. This issue was centre, the careers service or department or programme? mentioned in some two-thirds of learning support. In no institution the interviews. In all cases but two report of the higher education mapping exercise of student it was mentioned as problem. In the larger institutions, respondents students regarding the course these two cases it was commented also commented that often the representative system. It was clear that, generally speaking, they had student representative would sit that information was often very confi dence that mechanisms were on more committees than staff of sparse: departmental or course in place to ensure that student the institution and were able to get handbooks may have a small representatives were well briefed a greater feel for the institution’s section on the system. Smaller to represent their peer group. In activities and co-ordinate the institutions tended to produce these two institutions it was clear students’ associations’ response student handbooks which gave that systems were in place so more effectively. Generally more lengthy information on that student representatives on speaking, institutions that saw representative structures. Often institutional – and even faculty it as an advantage to have the information would be available level – committees met with same group of students involved through freshers’ week, whether course representatives from in institutional committees came through oral presentations or across the institution, or they from the places where student handbooks produced by the completed surveys by e-mail for representatives attended and were students’ associations. During the students’ association as a engaged in the processes. Those induction on individual programmes basic for representation. Similar institutions that identifi ed having the system might be mentioned, arrangements existed in other the same group of students on all and later explained when institutions – including where the of the committees largely came students elected their course institution questioned whether the from those institutions which had representatives. Information on representatives were representative problems getting students to the course representative system of the wider student body – and are attend meetings. was therefore presented at a time detailed in greater depth below. of information overload, something 23 Are representatives at the course which has been recently discussed level representative or not? Compounding this confusion, within the Scottish higher education particularly at an institutional level, This question is probably largely sector elsewhere.9 The limited was the issue of whether or not unanswerable. Yet in discussions effectiveness of this information it was appropriate or effective for held during the break-out groups might be suggested by the fact that most of the committees to have at the Responding to Student when sparqs undertakes training the same student representative Needs conference it is clearly a of course representatives it is clear or two or three representatives. concern even at the departmental that many newly elected course Where this was raised as an level. One of the reasons cited for representatives have no clear idea issue, respondents divided neatly thinking that course representatives of what they are supposed to do. into two. The fi rst group felt that were unrepresentative of their reliance on one individual placed fellow class mates was the fact that One complaint of many lecturing a greater strain on that individual staff-student liaison committees staff, as mentioned above, is that to attend often a greater number often dwelt on negative points, staff-student liaison committees of committees – and that there which clearly did not refl ect tend to concentrate on negative was a chance that the plurality of the more positive appraisal rather than positive experiences of the student voice was in danger of given courses by more informal the course. A review of materials being reduced to one or a handful feedback, or indeed by measuring available to students regarding of individuals. The second group the course by achievement. the course representative system felt that there was a strength in provided by institutions and a having one student sit on the Our interviews with the institutional number of students’ associations majority of committees, as this staff covered the issue of what suggests that the system is often meant the student gained information was provided to explained in largely negative terms. more experience of the institution and improved their performance 9 One of the published outcomes of the Responding to Student Needs will be a report on at the committees. Particularly in induction, where this issue, amongst others, is addressed. involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes Thus, course representatives are it was constitutionally possible In some cases, this idea of hitting individuals to refer to if students institutional staff said that they the ground running was based wish to report problems about would prefer representatives to around the fact that an incoming the course; the staff-student continue in post for more than offi cer had previous experience liaison committee is a place one year because the knowledge of institutional representation and where diffi culties can be resolved. gained through experience was therefore possessed that crucial Students are not encouraged to immense. It should be noted that element of experience already. speak to their course representative this continuity as a representative In other cases it was based on about their positive experiences, might not mean being a sabbatical value judgements related to the and, having identifi ed problems offi cer for two years. It might meant individual’s election campaign, with courses, students and their that before becoming a sabbatical which showed him to be more representatives are not challenged the individual has had experience “sensible” or “interested” than or encouraged to come up with of being a representative on the current offi cer(s). While there solutions. In seeing the course institutional committees. The were those who were optimistic representative system through a major problem cited by staff about how incoming offi cers prism of negativity it is no doubt concerning this annual change would engage, others were more also abundantly clear that many of representatives was that, pessimistic: feeling that incoming problems of a serious nature can not infrequently, new offi cers offi cers would not be as effective as (and should) be more appropriately were opposed to plans which current or previous ones, or would dealt with through channels other the previous year’s offi cers had be as ineffective as the current than the course representative. supported and vice versa. These offi cers. In those institutions 24 This no doubt produces a situation incidents tended to increase the where respondents thought that where course representatives are feelings that representatives were offi cers would not be as engaged themselves unsure about their role. acting from individual perspectives as previous ones, there was a real It must also assist in producing rather than collective ones, as concern that this would have an course representatives who hear explored in the above section. effect on institutional processes largely about problems when they and decision-making and that hear anything from their peers and The interviews with the staff of an important part of the process then, naturally enough, tend to institutions was conducted around would be diminished as a result. concentrate on these issues. the late part of the summer term and the early part of the summer Institutional staff appeared to “Annual regime change”: holidays. This was the period perceive this annual change as problem or opportunity? where current student offi cers destabilising and as something Another perceived problem were coming to the end of their over which they had little control concerning the representative term, just before new offi cers took or infl uence. Institutions with this system was the fact that more up offi ce. This meant that while annual changeover of offi cers often than not, in the words discussing matters relating to tended to be where the students’ of one respondent, there was attendance and engagement at association had specialist staff “annual regime change”, referring an institutional level, the thoughts who were dedicated to supporting particularly to sabbatical offi cers of respondents frequently drifted students represent their opinions to involved in institutional processes. to how they thought the levels of institutional structures. The issue Almost universally respondents involvement would change with a of how to support offi cers during commented independently of one new set of offi cers. A number of their handover period over the another that it took around six institutions commented upon how summer holidays will be explored months to get used to the role they had hopes that this year one – in the section entitled “Support of being a student representative or more – of the offi cers would “hit and training provided to student on a given committee and then the ground running” (an expression representatives”. the year was almost over. Where used by a number of interviewees). report of the higher education mapping exercise of student other responsibilities) to train and/or providing training and producing a Question: How do we support course representatives. handbook, or in co-ordinating these encourage communication from sparqs. A number of other between student representatives The role of the institution students’ associations supported to strengthen the positions in supporting course their course representatives by and contribution of student representatives other means: chief amongst representatives sitting on them regular meetings with institutional committees? At all but four institutions the students’ association is expected groups of course representatives to take the lead in supporting (see sub-section beneath on Question: How can course representatives. In four “structures to communicate with we encourage student institutions support for course course representatives”). One representatives to emphasise the representatives is provided students’ association had written positive learning experiences as through the production of a guidelines for the election of course well as the negative? course representative handbook representatives; two students’ or handouts. In one of these associations provided course institutions training of course leaders with an information pack Question: How might we representatives was conducted on the course representative raise awareness of the whole by both the institution and system. A number had developed student body about the course the students’ association. At message boards used by course representative system? another there was clearly tension representatives to exchange notes; between the institution and the a couple of others had sections Question: What ways are there students’ association as to who of their own websites devoted 25 to ensure that the “change- was responsible for offering what to information and briefi ngs for over” of both sabbatical and support to course representatives. course representatives. One non-sabbatical student offi cers The students’ association at the of these students’ associations has a minimal effect on effective University of Paisley commented produced a regular newsletter student involvement? extremely positively on the decision which was distributed to all course of the School of Computing representatives keeping them in to appoint a Student Support touch with developments in the Support and training Offi cer, one of whose tasks was institution. A few had plans to provided to course to encourage student participation develop such websites over the representatives in the course representative next academic year. At Queen During both interviews with staff system. The students’ association Margaret University College the and student representatives we commented that this had already, in students’ association provides one- asked questions regarding the its fi rst year of operations, resulted to-one training for students who support and training provided to in better recruitment of course undertake the task of chairing staff- course representatives. It was representatives within this School, student liaison committees. clear that in most institutions this and it hoped that the position was something which had, and would result in future developments How institutions support is, left to the institution’s students’ of the course representative system students’ associations in their role association. We therefore within the School. asked more detailed questions The student representatives of the students’ associations The role of students’ surveys suggested that the regarding their support and associations in supporting institutions often supported the course representatives training, particularly speaking course representative system to staff members of students’ Most students’ associations saw more than they appeared to give associations as they often had their primary roles in supporting themselves credit for. Only one responsibilities (usually amongst course representatives through student representative responded involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes with a direct “nothing really”. The students’ associations so that the therefore represent student views remaining representatives all right individuals were then offered at institutional committees. recognised that their institution the training and support provided was doing something to support by the students’ association. Structures to communicate with the operation of the course course representatives representative system. Some of The students’ association at the Only half of students’ associations the most common supports were University of Dundee stated that had mechanisms or fora with providing rooms to hold meetings the university had supported its which to meet the course between the students’ association attempts to communicate with, representatives in their institution. and course representatives, and encourage communication In seven students’ associations providing guidelines for the between, course representatives this was done through the fact operation of the whole system through developing the Course that the course representatives particularly in getting academic Rep Central system. This system were automatically members of staff to hold elections, and providing – which has now been handed the students’ association council the students’ association with over to the students’ association (Glasgow Caledonian University; names of course representatives. to maintain – was developed out University of Paisley; University It appeared that over the last few of the university’s preferred virtual of Abertay, Dundee; Glasgow academic years, institutions had learning environment, Blackboard. School of Art; Bell College of been getting better at providing All course representatives from Technology; Napier University; students’ associations with the different courses can access it and and Queen Margaret University names of course representatives. communicate with other course College). These students’ 26 Several commented that having an representatives from the same associations reported varying identifi able staff contact or contacts department to see if there are success at engaging their course assisted them in fi nding out the issues, positive or negative, that representatives within their details of course representatives. courses have in common. The council structures, with a couple system also allows students to commenting that sometimes One way in which several e-mail their course representative. course representatives did not institutions were able to offer Within the environment there realise their wider role meant signifi cant assistance to their are places for information from being on the students’ association students’ associations was the students’ association as well council. leadership. Representatives as support documentation and from four students’ associations training in the form of downloaded Four other students’ associations mentioned the role that senior video presentations. reported holding informal fora managers could play in promoting for class representatives. At the course representative system At Glasgow Caledonian University the University of Glasgow this by giving it and the students’ the students’ association was done through the faculty association vocal support commented that the university had conveners e-mailing regularly and throughout the institution. In at provided half the funding for a new holding meetings with course least one case this was signalled staff position to – in part – develop representatives within their faculty. as instrumental in allowing for more training and support materials for At the University of Edinburgh each student representation from course course representatives. Without school council has a convener who representatives and students’ these the students’ association can report matters to the relevant association representatives at the said that it would be unable to committee and offi cer of the faculty level. In other cases this offer much in the way of assistance students’ association. Fora along strong message from the centre to course representatives at college and faculty lines are in the was perceived to have had an its institution, and would fi nd it process of being established at effect on departments getting much harder to communicate the University of Aberdeen and the lists of course representatives to with course representatives and University of Stirling respectively. report of the higher education mapping exercise of student A slightly different situation exists at Support and training considerably weaker. The same two students’ associations where, provided to other student provisions existed, but due to rather than expecting all the course representatives other commitments (most notably representatives to congregate study) they were taken up more There appeared to be three major with the students’ association, the infrequently. Notable examples of areas of training and/or support students’ association goes out and support included a two-day training for student representatives sitting visits the course representatives and briefi ng session for School on institutional committees, instead. At the University Offi cers at Edinburgh University particularly if they were sabbatical of St Andrews the students’ Students’ Association and the offi cers. These areas were the association’s Education Convener training provided to the Academic institution; previous offi cer or staff is able to attend all staff-student Affairs Committee (consisting of a of students’ associations; and liaison committee meetings. At variety of student representatives the National Union of Students, Heriot Watt University the school including the equivalent of faculty- if the students’ association was offi cers are required to attend all level representatives) at Aberdeen affi liated to NUS. Clearly not all the staff-student liaison committee University Students’ Association. of this support and training was meetings as part of their remits. The level of support that can directed at areas relating to quality be provided by any students’ assurance and enhancement. Most students’ associations association is often dependent For example, induction at many – whatever structures of upon the level of staffi ng within communications they had with institutions was by the senior the students’ association. An course representatives – readily management and provided a increasing number of students’ acknowledged that this was an general overview of the institution. associations now have staff area they wished to improve and Only a minority of institutions 27 members who deal with supporting develop over coming years. provided any induction themselves into their approaches to quality their student representatives. assurance or enhancement, and In the vast majority of cases Question: What systems of this was generally left to individuals these staff members also have support are necessary to assist within the students’ association to other signifi cant responsibilities, course representatives to provide. As noted in a later section for example, for student discharge their responsibilities on the engagement of students in development, societies, all the more effectively? national quality mechanisms many students’ associations’ training student representatives themselves requirements, or welfare services. Question: How can institutions do not feel appropriately briefed on In four cases there is dedicated and students’ associations work the national quality enhancement staff support within students’ together to support course framework and how it relates to associations. At some institutions representatives? their own situation at their “home” the support provided by the staff institution. There was no doubt of the students’ associations that both staff of the institution and could be very signifi cant. At four Question: What responsibilities student representatives themselves institutions the specialist staff sat for supporting course saw the best induction to student on institutional committees usually representatives belong to the involvement as being through the alongside student representatives institution and which belong to act of involvement itself – through “in attendance”, but in a number the students’ association? attendance at committee meetings of cases as full members of or at whatever other opportunity the committee. In a number Question: How might students’ was provided. of institutions the staff member associations communicate with provided specifi c support for the course representatives more Support for non-sabbatical offi cers student member of internal subject effectively? sitting on institutional committees review panels. or faculty-level committees was involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes It also worthy of note that in the last Suggestion for incentive / recognition No of respondents10 couple of years as the opportunities for student involvement have Personal Development Planning 7 increased, for example, in internal Academic Credit 7 subject review or appeals panels, Payment 3 the training and support provided for the student representatives Gift in kind (i.e. food, drink, book tokens) 3 has not always necessarily kept Other form of recognition (e.g. certifi cation) 3 developing. Ability to use experience on C.V. 1

Question: Do student Although, as the above table offi cers) was generally mentioned representatives sitting on shows, many individuals saw in relation to student involvement in institutional committees need to that the advent of personal internal subject review (see section be better briefed on the national development planning might act as above). One institution, however, quality enhancement framework an incentive or give some form of remarked that, from the 2004-05 or about individual institutions’ recognition or accreditation for the academic year, it was planning quality assurance policies and work of student representatives, to pay its student representatives practices? no institution had implemented a on faculty and departmental programme that was actually doing committees an attendance Question: How can faculty this with class representatives. allowance. Many institutions were already 28 representatives be better trained and supported in their role? offering incentives such as From the 2004-05 academic year hospitality for attending training as the UHI Millennium Institute started class representatives, and many paying its student representatives Question: Do student institutions reported that some (or on its institutional and departmental representatives require particular indeed, in a few institutions, all) of committees (although not course training and support for their department’s staff-student representatives on its staff-student undertaking particular roles, liaison committees occurred over a liaison committee meetings). for example internal subject lunchtime, with the lunch provided Students receive £20 for every reviews? If so, what support and by the department. Smaller meeting they attend, which is in training is required? institutions tended to report that part to cover expenses and offset student representatives could any inconvenience caused through Incentives and recognition generally get a reference in relation attending the meeting, and in part for student representatives to their work as a representative to emphasise the important role from an individual within the student representatives have. In Unanimously, institutional institution, if they wanted. This this way the Institute hopes to respondents agreed that there form of recognition is probably in engage greater numbers of part- needed to be more incentives operation in many departments in time or block release students, as for student representatives. larger institutions. At the current well as recognise that the physical Respondents were asked what time only one institution offers distance between students and they thought might act as an academic credit for a course which colleges can mean signifi cant incentive; they were not given its programme representatives transport costs are incurred in prompts or suggestions. When are eligible to take (see below for attending committee meetings. asked what they thought was further details). Payment of student The payment comes from a needed, respondents suggested representatives (beyond sabbatical specially created budget within the the following ideas which had been discussed, usually informally, within 10 Respondents were given the opportunity to identify more than one incentive, and their institutions: therefore the total equals more than 21. report of the higher education mapping exercise of student Academic Registry. Although it is Factors that encourage student involvement No of respondents too early to tell whether payment of representatives has made a Wanting to make a difference 10 difference, initially it appears to Something for the C.V: or for skills 7 have had the effect of encouraging People can see the institution and/or students’ representatives to come forward 4 association changing things and stand for positions that in the past have been left unfi lled. It is General involvement in politics 3 suggested that as staff also know Gift in kind (e.g. food or drink) 2 that the student representative is receiving payment, they are Good use of talent – I can do better 1 more likely to use the student as a Involved in some level and moved up 1 resource, in turning meaning that Personal Development Planning scheme 1 students don’t merely attend the meeting, but they are more likely to be engaged. Napier University Factors that hinder student involvement No of respondents allot the students’ association Time and engagement in other commitments 9 an amount of money per course representative to buy some form of Perception it takes time, is diffi cult to engage 4 gift at the end of each year – which with, or is tokenistic in the 2004-05 academic year was Lack of awareness about role & importance 4 a whiskey miniature. The University Don’t care attitude 2 of Abertay, Dundee, are planning to 29 introduce a form of certifi cation for Lack of incentives 1 course representatives who attend Stereotype of what a representative is 1 at least 70% of staff-student liaison Students from certain backgrounds less willing committee meetings and SRC 1 meetings. to engage

Student representatives were Student representatives feel that student representatives and staff of not asked about incentives the greatest hindrance to students institutions commented, this may directly, but they were asked to getting involved in representing the have no effect on the engagement think about what they believed views and opinions of their fellow of the representative. encouraged and hindered students students is time, because they are in representing the views of their engaged in part-time work or other Signifi cant numbers of student fellow students to university staff. extra-curricular activities. It might offi cers believe that lack of Again, no suggestions were made then be argued that institutions awareness of the role of as to the answers, and student are responding appropriately in representatives and the diffi culty representatives were allowed to thinking that academic recognition, of engagement should not suggest more than one factor in whether through personal be overlooked, but none of each case. The following are their development planning or academic the suggestions of incentives suggestions: credit, raises the profi le of student offered by institutions addresses representatives and, therefore, these concerns. Student combats issues that students don’t representatives see the fact that have enough time. Given the fact being a representative can make a that many of them had to have welcome addition to any curriculum jobs, it would seem that payment vitae. Therefore, some form of of representatives might present an personal development planning answer. However, as a number of around that activity may assist in involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes encouraging students to participate Framework. The majority of arguing that the framework was in representation. What most institutions acknowledged that less important than the student student representatives believed this was something they did perspective and that detailed encouraged involvement was the not do, although knowledge knowledge of the framework would idea of making a difference and of the framework would clearly lead to the student representative helping others (either on their course assist representatives who sat being disassociated from the or students in subsequent years). on institutional committees. A student mindset that they were In this case the incentive is not handful of institutions – those with supposed to represent. necessarily any of the suggestions students’ associations that were proffered by staff of institutions big enough to have specialist Engagement with the but whether or not the student staff – pointed to the fact that this enhancement themes representative feels effective. would be something their students’ As part of our meeting with association staff would undertake. institutional staff we asked Question: What are the interviewees what involvement appropriate incentives for Knowledge of the Quality their student body had had with Enhancement Framework student representatives the enhancement themes.11 At – how do we get the balance In asking student representatives a couple of institutions it was right between incentives and about their knowledge of the pointed out that students from the recognition? Quality Enhancement Framework, it institution were members of various was clear that students’ knowledge theme Steering Committees. Question: How can institutions was limited to middling – although Four institutions were aware 30 and students’ associations most student representatives that student representatives had encourage those who want to spoken to recognised the term. attended various enhancement make a difference to become Some acknowledged that while themes events. One institution proactive representatives? they understood the various parts, has provided a budget to allow they were unsure how these staff and student representatives fi tted together. Around half of the to attend enhancement theme Question: How can institutions respondents clearly did not see events. Another institution held and students’ associations a framework but rather the part a thematic review on one of the assist student representatives of it they had been most involved enhancement themes and as part to articulate the skills they in, for example the Enhancement of the review hosted a discussion have developed through their Themes, or ELIR or the QAA with students around the subject. representative functions? Annual Visit. Where information Two institutions have used the had been picked up by student enhancement themes as topics Question: Is it appropriate to representatives, they were asked for their learning and teaching accredit the role of student to state where they had found conferences at which there has representatives with academic out about this knowledge. This been student involvement. credit? divided roughly equally among three sources: the parent institution Most student representatives itself; the QAA website; and stated that their involvement Engagement of students sparqs training. Only one student with the enhancement themes in national quality representative questioned whether was limited. Seven respondents mechanisms students sitting on institutional quoted the launch conference as During the course of our interviews committees needed to have the major way in which they had we asked institutional staff about knowledge of the framework, engaged in the themes. It was what briefi ngs they provided to student representatives 11 What follows – from an institutional perspective – is therefore based on information on the Quality Enhancement relating to the fi rst year of the enhancement themes. report of the higher education mapping exercise of student clear that a number of student of better understanding the student the institution to do something, offi cers or students’ associations experience at the institution, there is signifi cantly less enthusiasm had particular interests in one or sometimes utilising course for using the actual review itself two of the enhancement themes.12 representatives and, on other as an opportunity to make clear The most common enhancement occasions, general students from to the review panel any issues the theme to be mentioned by name all modes of study. One institution students’ association may have by student representatives was had run a mock review the previous with the institution’s approaches. the employability theme – largely year, the panel of which contained Student representatives were as student offi cers were serving a student from another institution. asked whether they would be on working groups established Another institution had hired a entirely honest with the review by their institution. Despite this consultant risk analyst who had panel on what they considered the involvement, the majority of student met with groups of students. On institution’s weaknesses to be; or offi cers stated that they were not balance, the older the institution the whether they would “hedge their more involved nationally in the less likely it was to engage students bets” and tone down criticism so enhancement themes because in ways additional to having student that they could work with their of time pressures and constraints membership of their ELIR group. institution more effectively on these of work. A signifi cant minority of issues. Student representatives student offi cers felt that they had The introduction of the divided neatly into two camps on never had the enhancement themes Enhancement-led Institutional this issue, between those that suffi ciently explained to them, or Review process – and its greater would be entirely honest and those that the information that came to emphasis on the student experience that would “hedge”. Perhaps and student involvement – appears more signifi cantly, all students’ them on each of the themes was 31 too much or too complex. This was to have given students’ associations associations of institutions particularly the case with the fl exible an extra tool. Evidence suggests undergoing review in 2004-05 delivery theme. that a number of the more engaged stated that they would be honest, students’ associations are using the but only up to a point, in many Enhancement-led institutional process as a means of increasing cases preferring to work with their Review student involvement. Several institution on matters instead. students’ associations whose For half of the institutions institutions have undergone, or Question: How can we interviewed as part of this report are about to undergo, the process encourage more student it was too early to answer how have commented that a number representatives to engage with students would be involved in of perennial issues, such as the national quality structures? the drawing up of the Refl ective issue of getting contact details of Analysis that institutions submit course representatives, are in the to the review panel before the Question: How do student process of being resolved. It was review itself. Six institutions were representatives benefi t from clear through the survey of student gaining student involvement in the engagement with national quality representatives that where this was writing of the Refl ective Analysis structures? noted, there was an explicit link through student membership of the between the institution’s actions committee that was overseeing its and the ELIR process. Question: Should we be drafting. Another four institutions encouraging more student had student involvement in their While some students’ associations representatives to be honest at groups writing the Refl ective may have found ways of using the their meetings with ELIR panels, Analysis, but had devised other process as a means of convincing and if so how? mechanisms for involving students in the process. In three institutions there had been focus groups of 12 The survey of student representatives took place at a time when four enhancement themes students held with the explicit aim were active: assessment; responding to student needs; employability; and fl exible delivery. involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes Conclusions

Strengths, weaknesses and engagement is encouraged by “representative-ness” of the student areas for development fostered informal contacts between representatives on institutional institutional staff and student fora. It might be suggested Generally, the systems of student representatives. It is also noted that the “resource” of course representation employed in most that a greater understanding of representatives could be harnessed higher education institutions appear the national quality framework has by institutions and students’ to provide useful feedback for the enhanced engagement by student associations more effectively to institution. A picture emerges representatives in institutional provide feedback and information across the higher education sector decision-making. on the wider student learning of student representatives being experience, as opposed to focusing encouraged to participate in This survey indicates that on the learning and teaching in an decision-making at all levels of the both institutions and students’ individual department. institution. associations use a great variety of approaches to encouraging It is clear that one area of student This survey has focused on a students to comment on their representation and involvement three-tiered model of student teaching and learning. It was found that is receiving a great deal of involvement, where opportunity can that there was a slight tendency thought and attention at the current lead to attendance, which in turn for the newer institutions to use a time is how to incentivise and can lead to engagement. It would greater variety of approaches of recognise student representatives. appear that, at the time of the including course representatives It should be noted that this survey, different institutions were at in commenting on quality than the was the area where there were different points on this continuum. older institutions. signifi cant differences of opinion This should not hide the fact 32 between institutional staff and that, depending on the level of At the departmental or programme student representatives on what involvement being examined, the level the course representative acted as an incentive or barrier to point at which an institution lies on system appears to fulfi l the involvement, and what might be that continuum might vary. This is needs of staff and students appropriate in terms of recognition. particularly notable in the case of in discussing quality issues, faculty-level representation, which for full-time undergraduates. Many institutions and students’ appears to be particularly poor at Systems for collecting feedback associations appear to have given nearly all institutions. Equally, it and representation of other signifi cant thought and effort should be acknowledged that this students, for example part-time over a number of years to how survey provides only a snap-shot students, distance learners, they might train and support their of student involvement and often postgraduates and international course representatives. Generally, the level of involvement by student students, are patchier between there appears to have been less representatives – particularly at the and within institutions. This area thought on how to induct student institutional level – can vary due to for development is refl ected in representatives at the institutional individual personalities and factors. students’ associations’ structures level to the institution’s policies for communicating with students and practices. With regard to the The survey has deliberately from these groups. It was clear training and support of faculty level concentrated on this three-tiered that the major issue that students’ representatives, those institutions model of student involvement associations had with the course providing little vastly out-number because the role of sparqs, representative system within those where some is provided. and more pertinently the ideal their institution was the issue As institutions increase the ways of student involvement in of communication with course in which students are involved institutional decision-making, is representatives. This in turn might in decision-making processes, to encourage engagement and lead to circumstances in some for example through being not merely opportunity. It would institutions where staff question the members of internal subject review appear at an institutional level

report of the higher education mapping exercise of student panels, institutions and students’ This survey has highlighted the associations to address some of associations will need to ensure fact that within higher education the weaknesses pointed to in this that their training and support generally structures of student report in order to enable student continues to be tailored to the involvement and representation representatives to be further specifi cs of the role that student are working well. It has hopefully engaged in commenting on their representatives play within the indicated practice at some learning experience. institution. It may be that there is institutions that others will fi nd a wider need for support in terms helpful and useful to their own of providing clear information to situations. It is hoped that, in students on the purpose of student the future, development work of involvement and representation to sparqs can be directed towards all students at the institution. assisting institutions and students’

33

involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes Questions

Student representation on and at institutional committees

Question: What can institutions do to encourage their cohort of students to become involved in representing the views of their fellow students to the university management? Question: What can institutions change about their own procedures to encourage student representatives to engage further with the business of institutional committees? Question: How can institutions ensure that students on the Court or Governing Body of the institution feel more comfortable about their position? Question: Is there clear agreement between institutions and between management and student representatives on the type of institution committees that it is inappropriate for students to sit on?

Student representation on and at faculty-level committees

Question: How can institutions improve the attendance of student representatives at faculty-level committees? Question: Should faculty representatives be chosen from amongst the course representatives or through the students’ association? Question: Is there agreement on the type of faculty-level committee that it is appropriate and inappropriate for student representatives to sit on? Question: Can the format and/or business of faculty-level committees be amended so as to encourage student representatives to make a better informed and more useful contribution to such committees? 34 Student engagement at the departmental or programme level

Question: Can institutions and students’ associations make the role and remit of course representative clearer to all connected with the system? Question: How can institutions and students’ associations involve distance-learning students, international students, postgraduate students and part-time students more effectively within their student representative structures? Question: How can institutions and students’ associations encourage students to communicate with their representatives and representatives to better communicate with each other? Question: How can institutions and students’ associations use the resource held in their course representatives in other ways to feed back information on the wider student experience? Question: How can institutions and students’ associations fi nd out how effective the course representative system actually is across various departments?

Informal links between student representatives and institutional staff

Question: How can institutions encourage informal contact from their student representatives, particularly at institutional level? Question: How can students’ associations encourage informal contact with institutional management? Question: How can informal contact between students’ associations and management at the faculty level be made more meaningful? Question: How can informal contacts and working relationships be embedded so that they continue when student representatives or institutional managers are replaced?

report of the higher education mapping exercise of student Student involvement outside the committee structures

Question: What are the benefi ts of student involvement in internal subject reviews, disciplinary, appeals and complaints committees?

Question: Are there further means by which students can be involved in internal subject reviews, disciplinary, appeals and complaints committees?

Question: Are the “miscellaneous” mechanisms for generating student involvement at some institutions transferable to other institutions?

Question: How do these “miscellaneous” mechanisms relate to existing student representative structures?

Mechanisms in place to respond to student views

Question: How can we encourage staff-student liaison committees to discuss learning as well as teaching?

Question: How can institutions better report back to students on how they have responded to student feedback and comment at staff-student liaison committee meetings?

Question: Should staff-student liaison committees discuss broader issues of academic success, for example the impact of support services on the teaching and learning within a department or programme?

Question: Do staff-student liaison committees have a wider role in feeding back information about the student experience to institutional and academic management at the centre of the institution? 35 Views and opinions expressed about student representation

Question: How do we encourage communication between student representatives to strengthen the positions and contribution of student representatives sitting on institutional committees?

Question: How can we encourage student representatives to emphasise the positive learning experiences as well as the negative?

Question: How might we raise awareness of the whole student body about the course representative system?

Question: What ways are there to ensure that the “change-over” of both sabbatical and non-sabbatical student offi cers has a minimal effect on effective student involvement?

Support and training provided to course representation

Question: What systems of support are necessary to assist course representatives to discharge their responsibilities more effectively?

Question: How can institutions and students’ associations work together to support course representatives?

Question: What responsibilities for supporting course representatives belong to the institution and which belong to the students’ association?

Question: How might students’ associations communicate with course representatives more effectively?

involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes Support and training provided to other student representatives

Question: Do student representatives sitting on institutional committees need to be better briefed on the national quality enhancement framework or about individual institutions’ quality assurance policies and practices?

Question: How can faculty representatives be better trained and supported in their role?

Question: Do student representatives require particular training and support for undertaking particular roles, for example internal subject reviews? If so, what support and training is required?

Incentives and recognition for student representatives

Question: What are the appropriate incentives for student representatives – how do we get the balance right between incentives and recognition?

Question: How can institutions and students’ associations encourage those who want to make a difference to become proactive representatives?

Question: How can institutions and students’ associations assist student representatives to articulate the skills they have developed through their representative functions?

Question: Is it appropriate to accredit the role of student representatives with academic credit?

36 Engagement of students in national quality mechanisms Question: How can we encourage more student representatives to engage with national quality structures?

Question: How do student representatives benefi t from engagement with national quality structures?

Question: Should we be encouraging more student representatives to be honest at their meetings with ELIR panels, and if so how?

report of the higher education mapping exercise of student Acknowledgements

The production of this report would have been impossible without the co-operation of a great number of individuals throughout the higher education sector in Scotland. The following individuals graciously consented to give freely of their time in order to answer numerous questions and many of them also provided additional information and answered subsequent questions.

Dr Jack Aitken, Head of Senate Offi ce, University of Glasgow

James Alexander, President, Heriot Watt University SA (2004-05)

John Anderson, VP Education, Glasgow University SRC (2004-05)

Nina Anderson, Administrative Offi cer, QE Unit, University of Paisley

Audrey Bainbridge, Administrator, Robert Gordon University SA

Abed Bandin, President, Robert Gordon University SA (2004-05)

Alex Baker, Academic Support Co-ordinator, Edinburgh University SA

Dr Kirsten Black, Teaching Group Manager, Scottish Agricultural College

Dr David Bottomley, Assistant Head of QAA Scotland

Irene Bruce, Head of Quality Assurance & Enhancement, Edinburgh College of Art

Matt Brown, President, Edinburgh College of Art SRC and Union (2004-05)

Mhairi Buchannan, Student Development Offi cer, QMUC SU 37

David Carse, Training Advisor, sparqs

Neil Clements, President Glasgow School Art SA (2004-05)

Dr Collette Coll, Senior Tutor at the Aberdeen campus, Scottish Agricultural College

Jill Collins, Student Development Adviser, Glasgow Caledonian University SA

Prof Robert Cormack, Principal, UHI Millennium Institute

Rob Coward, Assistant Registrar (QE) Queen Margaret University College

Prof Bob Craik, Director of Quality Development, Heriot Watt University

Lindsay Cunningham, Infomedia Offi cer, NUS Scotland

Katherine Dalby, Project Offi cer, the Higher Education Academy

Dr Alan Davidson, Director of Quality Assurance, University of Dundee

Jamie Davidson, President, University of Strathclyde SA (2004-05)

Sarah Davidson, Administrator, sparqs

Jane Denholm, Critical Thinking

Hilary Douglas, Academic Registrar, the Robert Gordon University

Olivia Drennan, Democratic Services Co-ordinator, University of Strathclyde SA

Kezia Dugdale, Student Support and Campaigns Adviser, Edinburgh University SA

Jenny Duncan, President, Aberdeen University SA (2003-04) involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes Adrian Dunn, Subject Network Representative UHI SA (2003-04)

James Dunphy, Academic Affairs Convener, Aberdeen University SA (2003-04)

Dr Andrew Eadie, Director of Quality, Glasgow Caledonian University

Dawn Fisher, President, University of Abertay Dundee SA (2003-04)

Andrew Forsyth, VP Activities & Development, Glasgow University SRC (2004-05)

Joanna Gamblin, Assistant Registrar Quality Assurance, University of Stirling

Ewan Hainey, Academic Registrar, Royal Scottish Academy of Music and Drama

Erica Hensens, President, Queen Margaret University College SU (2004-05)

Chris Hobbs, Faculty Board Representative UHI SA (2003-04)

Karen Ingram, Training Manager, Edinburgh University SA

Liam Jarnecki, Director, NUS Scotland (until 2004)

Derek Johnston, Director of Secretariat & Management Services, Napier University

Jane-Claire Judson, Public Affairs Offi cer, NUS Scotland

Rowena Kochanowska, Head of Academic Offi ce, University of Strathclyde

Jadwiga Koprowska, VP Education & Careers, Dundee University SA (2004-05) 38 Vincent Lasseaux, Campaigns & Representation Offi cer, Napier SA (2004-05)

Jill Little, President, Paisley University SA (2004-05)

Eve Lewis, Education & Welfare Manager, Heriot Watt University SA

Dr Gillian Mackintosh, Deputy Academic Registrar, University of Aberdeen

Jackie Main, Head of Academic & Student Services, Glasgow School of Art

Calum Mair, VP Education, Aberdeen University SA (2004-05)

Gerald Madill, Policy Offi cer, Universities Scotland

Nick Manton, Membership Services Manager, Stirling University SA

Dr Paddy Mather, Assistant Director, The Open University in Scotland

Fiona McChlery, President, Glasgow Caledonian University SA (2004-05)

Robert McGregor, Policy Offi cer, Scottish Higher Education Funding Council

Nicola McLelland, Representative Services Co-ordinator, Glasgow University SRC

Fraser Millar, President, Dundee University SA (2004-05)

Laura Middleton, Academic Affairs Offi cer, Stirling University SA (2004-05)

Eric Monaghan, Administrative Secretary, Academic Affairs, University of Dundee

Alison Morton, Administrative Offi cer, Registry, The Robert Gordon University

Wendy Muir, Assistant Head of Senate Offi ce (Quality), University of Glasgow

Gordon Mulholland, General Manager, Paisley University SA report of the higher education mapping exercise of student Sarah Nicolson, VP Representation, Edinburgh University SA (2003-04)

Rami Okasha, President, NUS Scotland (2003-04)

Michael Owers, President, Royal Scottish Academy of Music & Drama SU (2004-05)

Ian Patrick, Director of Quality, Bell College of Technology

Becks Pentley, Student Liaison Offi cer, Perth College

Christain Poziernski, President, Napier SA (2004-05)

Sarah Purves, Student Adviser – Academic, Edinburgh University SA

Dr Frank Quinalt, Director of Saltire, University of St Andrews

Ben Reilly, Director of Representation, St Andrews SA (2004-05)

Rebecca Robinson, Deputy President, Strathclyde University SA (2004-05)

Donnie Rosie, President, UHI SA (2003-04 and 2004-05)

Sabrina Russo, VP Academic Affairs, Edinburgh University SA (2004-05)

Anne Sibbald, Director of Quality Enhancement, Napier University

Chris Sloan, General Manager, Dundee University SA

Prof Brenda Smith, Head of Generic Centre, the Higher Education Academy 39 Jason Smith, President, Bell College SU (2004-05)

Kate Sneddon, Student Services Manager, the Open University in Scotland

Sheena Stewart, Senior Academic Services Offi cer, University of Abertay, Dundee

Prof Simon Van Heynigen, Vice Principal, University of Edinburgh

Simon Varwell, Student Development Offi cer, UHI Millennium Institute

Melanie Ward, NUS Scotland President (2004-05)

Dr Andrew Walker, Academic Services Registrar, Scottish Agricultural College

Jo Weir, President, University of Abertay, Dundee SA (2004-05)

Ann Whannell, Administration/Development Manager, Napier SA

Al Wilson, President, Stirling University SA (2004-05)

Chris Wooff, VP Services and Treasurer, Stirling University SA (2004-05)

Dr Derek Young, Project Offi cer, Responding to Student Needs Enhancement Theme

In addition, the author would like to thank the participants of two workshops on the subject of “Effective Student Representation” held at the Enhancement Themes conference on 8th July 2004 at Glasgow on “Responding to Student Needs in Scottish Higher Education: towards meeting the diverse needs of students today”. Helpful comments were also given in response to a paper delivered by the author and Robert McGregor of the Funding Councils at the Student Wellbeing Conference held at the University of Glasgow on 26th-27th August 2004 entitled; “A Responsible University in the 21st Century?: using the learner voice to deliver a responsible university in the 21st century”, based on some of the work in this report. involvement in quality assurance & enhancement processes 40 contact us: 12a union street, edinburgh eh1 3lu t: 0131 622 6599 f: 0131 622 6597 e: [email protected] w: www.sparqs.org.uk