Report of the Higher Education Mapping Exercise of Student

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

Load more