student written submission - university of wolverhampton · 2014-11-21 · student written...

Student Written Submission QAA Higher Education Review of the University of Wolverhampton

February 2015

University of Wolverhampton Students’ Union

Student Written Submission 2015

1 | P a g e

Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction

1. Introduction to the University of Wolverhampton Students’ Union ............. 3

2. Relationship with the University ......................................................................... 5

3. Statement of Authorship .................................................................................... 8

Section 2: Progress since the 2008 Institutional Review

1. Significant changes since the last Institutional Review (2008) ................... 10

2. Progress of recommendations made by UWSU at the last review ........... 11

Section 3: Quality, Support and Academic Standards

1. Assessment ......................................................................................................... 12

2. Feedback .......................................................................................................... 15

3. Curriculum Design and Review ....................................................................... 17

4. Academic Misconduct ................................................................................... 19

5. Academic Appeals .......................................................................................... 21

6. Complaints ........................................................................................................ 22

7. Student Support and Learning Resources ..................................................... 24

8. Personal Tutoring ............................................................................................... 29

9. International Students ..................................................................................... 30

10. Post Graduate Taught and Research Students ........................................... 32

11. Distance Learners/TNE/Collaborative Partners ............................................ 35

12. Placements ........................................................................................................ 37

13. External Examiners ............................................................................................. 38

14. Recruitment, Retention and Attainment ....................................................... 40

15. Employability ...................................................................................................... 43

Section 4:

Summary of UWSU recommendations 2014 .......................................................... 45

Appendices:

A Copy of ‘Are you Glad You’re Here’ Survey conducted in May 2014 .. 49

B Table of progress made against recommendations contained within

the 2008 Student Written Submission and QAA Audit Report (and

including new recommendations) .............................................................. 57



2 | P a g e

C List of evidence and research used in compiling the Submission………65

D List of acronyms contained within the Submission…………………………67



3 | P a g e

Section 1: Introduction

1.1 Introduction to the University of Wolverhampton Students’ Union (UWSU)

This document has been prepared by the University of Wolverhampton’s

Students’ Union (UWSU) for the purpose of the University of Wolverhampton’s

Institutional Review for the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) in February 2015.

The report is evidenced based and aims to examine the students’ academic

and wider experience at the University.

The evidence used ranges from minutes and action plans from University

committee meetings since the last review, School and Faculty based

meetings, national and internal surveys conducted by the University, surveys

and focus groups conducted by the Students’ Union, reports relating to

specific topics or areas of interest e.g. BME students’ attainment, and

feedback obtained through the Student Voice and the SU on Tour

programme, which was initiated in 2013/14.

The University of Wolverhampton Students’ Union (hereafter termed the SU) is

an independent charity that exists to represent, support and provide extra-

curricular opportunities for the students studying at the University of

Wolverhampton (UoW). The number of students at the University averages

between 20,000 and 23,000 per annum and these are spread across the four

campuses of the University in Wolverhampton, Walsall, Telford and Burton. In

March 2014, of 21,269 students registered at the University, only 108 had

opted (upon enrolment) not to share their details with the Students’ Union.

The SU is a relatively small organisation and has physical spaces provided in

kind by the University on Wolverhampton (City) Campus and Walsall Campus.

Whilst not having a permanent staff presence on the Telford or Burton

campuses (with Burton being a teaching hospital), we ensure regular

outreach to these students via the Student Voice and our ‘SU on Tour’

programme. An SU common room was also donated in the 2012/13

academic year by the University to the students in Telford. The City Campus

SU is a busy environment with high footfall as it is located centrally within the

University opposite the learning centre, whilst the SU on Walsall campus is a

more compact space, housed independently next to the halls of residence,

and which enjoys more of a ‘campus’ atmosphere.

The SU is currently working closely with the University to develop a stronger

Student Voice for students studying at the University’s local, national, and

international collaborative institutions. It is also keen to develop its role in

encouraging access and raising aspirations within the local community, as

the University rebrands itself as the ‘University of Opportunity’.

Funding for the SU comes mainly from an annual block grant from the

University, as well as some additional restricted funds from the institution for



4 | P a g e

specific activities. The SU then depends on the income it achieves through its

limited commercial outlets and through advertising sales and sponsorship.

Both City and Walsall SU spaces operate a coffee/juice bar outlet (with a

limited food offering) called The Squeezebox. As with most Students’ Unions

nationally, the SU is looking to diversify its funding streams through strategic

collaboration with external stakeholders as well as the institution.

The key services provided by the SU include an Advice and Support Centre

(ASC), a Student Engagement department that facilitates the Student Voice,

student societies, volunteering, sport and employability support, as well as the

democracy and governance of the SU (including elections), and the

Squeezebox. A team of around 24 FTE permanent staff and 40 student staff

operate and manage the services and support the Executive Committee to

fulfil their manifesto aims, whilst ensuring the Union meets its three core aims:

• To enhance the student voice across the University • To maximise the student experience for all students

• To promote and support students’ success

The SU’s Executive Committee is comprised of four full-time Officers; a

President and three Vice Presidents responsible respectively for Academic,

Welfare, and Student Experience matters. These officers are paid,

contracted members of staff and can hold office for a maximum of two

years. Eight part-time officers make up the rest of the Committee and are

responsible for the following areas: Walsall Campus, City Campus, Telford

Campus, International Students, Mature, Part-Time, and Student Parents,

Postgraduate Engagement, Environment, and Volunteering Engagement.

The Executive Committee are joined in Union Council by Faculty Reps, as well

as Liberation Reps who are responsible for supporting the needs of BME

students, Students with Disabilities and LGBT+ students. All Officer and Rep

positions are contested through cross-campus elections which are held each

Spring and Autumn.

The student demographic at UoW is one which the SU needs to work hard to

engage. Information obtained from Registry at the time of writing this report

detailed that, of the Wolverhampton student population, approximately 26%

were Part-Time students, 14% Postgraduate students, just under1100 were

classed as international and 865 as TNE (transnational education) students,

studying in partner colleges overseas. 57% of UoW students were female.

Many of the SU’s members are local students, part-time, mature, student

parents or carers and those on vocational courses entailing a significant

amount of time on placement. There are also a number of students studying

in UoW’s UK-based partner institutions and colleges.



5 | P a g e

The SU aims to provide support services and activities that are relevant to all

of the different cohorts of students and ensure that a quality student

experience is always at the heart of the University’s decision-making.

1.2 Relationship with the University

The SU enjoys a strong relationship with the University, particularly regarding

the Student Voice and, over the last couple of years, has developed a

Student Charter with the Dean of Students. This lays out what students can

expect and what is expected of them when studying here. The Charter is

reviewed year on year for relevance and inclusivity. Part of that process this

year was to review the charter to align with the new Faculty structure, to add

more hyperlinks to improve access to supporting information, as well as to

establish a bespoke Student Charter for the University’s transnational (TNE)

students, and develop an offer (similar to a Charter) for all PG students.

The SU is aware that more work needs to be done by all parties to ensure

every UoW student is aware of the existence of the Charter. In the ‘Are You

Glad You’re Here?’ Survey1 which the SU conducted throughout May 2014 to

help inform the Student Written Submission (hereafter called ‘the SU Survey’)

students were asked if they were aware of the Student Charter. Of the 850

students who gave a response to this question, 27.4% answered, ‘Yes, I have

read it’, 42.5% said, ‘I have heard of it but not read it’ and 30.1% said, ’no’.

The University shows a commitment to listening to the views of students via

the Full-Time elected officers who have seats on every major University

Committee, up to the most senior Corporate Management Team and Board

of Governors. The Academic Vice President also submits a twice yearly

report for Academic Board, with ongoing recommendations which the SU will

then monitor progress against. (Some of the most recent recommendations

are reflected within this Submission).

It is, also, commonplace for the President and, where appropriate, the Vice

Presidents to have regular, diarised or ad-hoc one-to-one meetings with

members of the Corporate Management Team to discuss progress against

strategic plans and any emerging issues. This often has the effect of enabling

earlier resolutions to any immediate problems or concerns the SU might have

around the student experience and to enable ideas and suggestions to be

discussed at an informal stage, prior to being taken to any committee.

Other committees in which the Officers play a part include the University’s

Academic Board, Quality Enhancement Committee (UQEC), Student

Experience Committee (USEC), Finance and Investment Committee, Campus

Committee, Safety Policy Committee, Sustainability, Environment and Carbon

1

https://www.surveymonkey.com/summary/AbxagulIAE8_2B7jmr1y1wnZBfeXWkm8E6_2BTPi6Cgm9fU_3D




6 | P a g e

Management Group, and Ethics Committee. A number of these are then

replicated at a Faculty Level (e.g. FSEC’s and FQEC’s), in which Faculty Reps

and Course Reps (who are managed by the SU), and elected officers play a

pivotal role and often chair.

The SU believes that genuine commitment to the student voice is also

demonstrated by its routine involvement in significant change or senior

appointments at the University. Officers have been consulted on key

institutional changes over recent years, including a move to Faculties from

Schools, a move from alpha-numerical to percentage marking, the

development of WOLF, and the introduction of ‘Learning Works’.

Officers and staff have, also, been involved in reviews of departments and

courses within the institution, such as Psychology, as well as of its academic

regulations, fees and bursary arrangements, facilities and virtual learning

platforms. University departmental managers have also secured the help of

the Exec to facilitate student focus groups and surveys into various services

across campus since the last institutional review, including those provided by

IT and the Learning Centres. The SU has, also, been actively involved in the

institution’s process to pull together its Self-Evaluation Document, and had a

seat on the associated HER Task Group. Similarly, the HER Task Group has

been privy to this Submission from draft status.

The SU has also been responsible for pulling together some cross campus and

cross departmental groups to tackle issues head on. The Welfare Vice

President in 2012/13, for example, convened a Strategising Mental Health

Working Group to address concerns over a perceived rise in the number of

students presenting or displaying mental health. This group, which is still

going, has brought about the recruitment of a specialist mental health co-

ordinator, an agreement to revise its crisis guidelines, as well as implementing

new training packages for staff. Genuine partnership and respect for the SU’s

concerns has resulted in these developments.

Ensuring that the Student Voice is heard is of fundamental importance to the

SU and it receives ring-fenced funding from the institution to enable it to

facilitate this via Course and Faculty (previously School) Reps. The SU trains

and supports these Reps to represent their own cohorts and raise issues or

concerns at Faculty/ School level councils, committees and boards. Faculty

Reps receive a performance-related honorarium, whilst Course Reps are

volunteers. Many of the Union’s Course Reps and Faculty/School Reps in

recent years have gone on to secure full-time officer roles in the cross-

campus elections.

The Student Voice system requires the University and SU to work in partnership

to ensure its success, not least because, unlike Faculty School Reps who are

elected during the SU’s Spring and Autumn elections, Course Reps are voted

into their positions within lectures. The SU and senior Faculty/School staff



7 | P a g e

often work together to resolve issues that are raised at Faculty/ School

councils and committees, whether they are related to the academic or

general student experience. Such issues range from concerns about

teaching or feedback to those around facilities, inter-site transport and

catering. The SU and University are in the process of establishing how best to

move forward with the Student Voice within the new Faculty structure, which

includes aligning the four Full-Time Executive Officers to a Faculty each.

The SU’s Advice and Support Centre (ASC) is a valued and recognised

service across the institution, offering professional and impartial academic,

financial, housing, immigration, health and some legal advice to students.

Advisors within this service enjoy very good working relationships with the key

support services of the University, including the Gateway, Conduct and

Appeals, Student Offices, the International Centre, Finance, Registry and

Accommodation. SU Advisors have been integral to the development of

academic policies and procedures since the last review, including the

Appeals procedure and, most recently, the Leave of Absence guidelines.

Whilst acting as the critical friend to the University, the SU is always very keen

to commend the University and its staff for success and quality. To this end,

the SU held its third Students’ Union Teaching Awards in Spring 2014 to give

students the opportunity to thank and honour fantastic teaching and

support.

The Awards are truly student-led from the choosing of the categories, to the

shortlisting and final selection of winners, to the entertainment at the awards

evening. It has become a recognised and celebrated fixture and receives

great support from the University’s senior management team. This year, the

SU is working with the University’s Centre for Academic Practice to ensure

that good practice identified through the awards is disseminated and

replicated across the institution.

The SU has also benefitted in recent years from significant financial

investment in its space and facilities by the University. After experiencing

critical financial difficulties in 2008, the SU saw a period of flux in its

management and operations, which settled down greatly with the

appointment of a new CEO in January 2010. This led to a re-evaluation of the

Union’s core business as being non-commercial, membership services. Since

then, the SU has developed and improved exponentially and has re-gained

the trust of the institution.

The City Campus SU space was vastly improved over summer 2010 and re-

opened as the Ambika Paul Student Union. The SU then secured a building

on Walsall Campus (at which it previously had no physical presence besides

use of a common room) which opened in November 2011, and over summer

2012, the remainder of the City SU space was transformed with a new

Lounge, Venue, Advice Centre and juice bar.



8 | P a g e

It is fair to say that the past few years have seen the SU transform beyond

recognition, physically and operationally, and it takes a very keen interest in

how well it is meeting the needs of its diverse membership. With the

introduction of a question within the National Student Survey regarding

satisfaction with the Students’ Union, the SU achieved a 63% satisfaction

rating in 2012, 65% in 2013 and 64% in 2014. In 2013, the SU was amongst the

top 5 most improved Unions in the THE Student Experience Survey and in 2014,

was in 1st place as the most improved Union, having moved up 21 places in

the league table of publishable results to 48th (from a position of being 105th in

2011).

A healthy relationship with the institution has been crucial in realising these

achievements and in ensuring continuous improvement in the years ahead.

1.3 Statement of Authorship

This submission has been a collaborative piece of work and its main

contributors have been:

Zoe Harrison – Academic Vice President (2013/14) and President (2014/15)

Sophie Williams – Deputy CEO

Helen Williams – Advice and Support Centre Advisor

The SU has focussed on most of the areas and topics suggested by the QAA

in its guidance for student submissions2 in compiling this document. As well as

interrogating information that the SU already had to hand since the last

review, it decided to survey its membership specifically to help inform this

Submission, again using the QAA guidance when determining the questions.

This was the ‘Are You Glad You’re Here’ Survey which is referred to hereon in

as ‘the SU Survey’, for ease of purpose3. The SU was required, due to a survey

‘embargo’ by the University, to wait until the close of their Single Survey

Period before sending this out to its membership. This ran from January 2014

to the end of April 2014, when the main assessment period also began.

The SU is certain that this affected the response rate. The survey received 872

responses which was respectable in the circumstances, and asked

comprehensive questions around the student experience from induction to

University process and procedures, support, placement experience,

involvement in curriculum design, and skill development (see Appendix A).

The vast majority of respondents were ‘Home’ students (91.3%), with 4.6%

coming from the EU, and 4.1% being international. There were also pleasing

numbers of responses from students who are traditionally considered harder

2 Optional template for student submissions in QAA reviews

3





9 | P a g e

to reach, including distance learners, part time students, and students with a

disability.

In November 2013, the SU introduced an outreach programme - ‘SU on Tour’ -

whereby Officers and staff visited most of the buildings across the University

estate to raise awareness about its services for students. A total number of

1,023 students were recorded as being spoken to through this programme

and a vast amount of feedback was received. Students spoke to us about

all aspects of their experience from their courses and tutors, to their

experience on placements, to car parks and catering.

All feedback was captured in a database4 and actioned where possible,

largely through Faculty / School based committees and University-wide

committee meetings, such as USEC, and more specific Task and Finish

Groups, such as that looking at ‘Out of Hours’ Provision. The SU is aware,

however, that it needs now to improve how it communicates back to its

members on what action has (or has not) resulted from their feedback.

Other surveys conducted by the SU this academic year to capture the views

of as wide a range of students as possible include one in February to, at the

request of the University, seek opinions on what extended services students

would like to see at the University, and, a separate Student Parent Survey

conducted by the Welfare Vice President about their experiences. A report

with recommendations from this survey was taken to USEC which referred it to

Faculty Student Experience Committees to respond and comment. .

Post graduate students made up 14% of the student population at the

University in 2013/14. The SU was also hoping to conduct a separate survey

for Post Graduate students in Semester 2 but were asked not to do so by the

University’s Research Hub due to their sending out an Internal Postgraduate

Research Experience Survey (iPRES) in Spring 2014, and them not wishing

students to be ‘over-surveyed.

We have consulted comprehensively with students and staff, particularly in

the 2013/14 academic year, in order to form this Submission and the

recommendations contained therein. Whilst we recognise that these

recommendations hold no formal bearing, we felt they summarised the key

areas of focus for students and can be identified both within the main body

of the text in bold and in summary in Section 4 below.

A first draft of this submission was made available to the University HER Task

and Finish Group on 20th June 2014, and the final submission presented to the

University Academic Board’s first meeting of the year on 15th September 2014.

It was also submitted to Union Council on 31st October 2014, and placed on

our website after submission on 10th November 2014.

4 SU Unified Feedback Database



10 | P a g e

Section 2: Progress since the 2008 Institutional Review

2.1 Significant changes since the last Institutional Review (2008)

Since the last institutional review there have been a number of significant

changes which will have impacted upon students’ academic experience at

the University of Wolverhampton. The most notable changes are as follows:

The appointment of a new Vice Chancellor, Professor Geoff Layer

(August 2011), leading to a new strategic approach from the University.

Change to the structure of the Senior Management Team to reflect the

new Strategic direction, including the creation of three Deputy Vice

Chancellor posts (Academic, Access and Lifelong Learning, and

Outreach and Enterprise).

The merger from eight Schools to four Faculties, creating the Faculty of

Science and Engineering, Faculty of Social Sciences, Faculty of

Education, Health and Wellbeing, Faculty of Arts (September 2013 -

January 2014).

The resulting appointments of new Associate and Faculty Deans.

The introduction of the Student Charter (September 2012). This was

developed by the SU Academic Vice President (2011-12) with input

from the University and is renewed each year.

The implementation of the new marking system for Undergraduate and

Postgraduate Students. A percentage- based marking scheme was

introduced in September 2013 which replaced an alpha-numeric

scale.

‘Learning Works’ (2009) – Refocusing of the Undergraduate Curriculum.

This encompassed the conversion of modules from 15 to 20 credits and

from to students’ studying 6 modules from 8 per year. This was

implemented in the academic year 2010-11. Significant changes were

made to the University’s Undergraduate Academic Regulations and

Academic Calendar as a result. The Postgraduate Taught Review

followed this process and consequently a new PG taught portfolio was

introduced in September 2011. This also comprised many modules

changing from 15 to 20 credits and a change in the Postgraduate

academic regulations to facilitate this.

October 2014 will see the introduction of a new academic calendar,

realigning the postgraduate and undergraduate framework and

replacing year-long modules with semester-long modules.

The University has invested in the development of the Students ‘Union

space both at City and Walsall campuses. This has allowed students to

benefit from a social area and new commercial outlets. Students have

also benefitted from the development of ‘The Performance Hub’ at the

Walsall Campus.

The University is in the process of building a new Science Block

(opening in September 2014) and Business School.



11 | P a g e

The University closed its Compton Campus in September 2010. This

mainly catered for students in the Business School. These students are

now taught at City Campus.

The University introduced a plan in March 2014 to redevelop many

aspects of the Telford Innovation Campus, to include the development

of a new International Academy (to support language development

and progression routes for international students) broadening the

Engineering curriculum to include electrical and aeronautical

engineering.

The review of the Institute for Learning Enhancement (ILE) and creation

of four new units: Centre for Technology Enhanced Learning (CTEL),

Centre for Academic Practice (CAP), Centre for Lifelong Learning, and

the Research Policy Unit.

During the academic Year 2012-13 ‘Student Centres’ were developed.

Student Services were altered so students had fewer locations from

where to seek advice, hand in assignments etc.

The Dissolution of the Graduate School in 2008. Research students’

administration was then managed by Registry. In 2012-13 the S.T.A.R

(Student Trans National and Research) Office was formed which

adopted this role. A Dean of Research was also appointed in August

2012, and the Research Hub was created to support researchers and

embed the new emphasis of applied research at the University. A new

Doctoral College has now been created, aimed at enhancing

supervision and support for postgraduate students.

The Deputy Vice Chancellors for Academic Affairs and for Access &

Life Long Learning were both replaced in September 2014 after the

individuals retired. The SU was pleased to be part of the recruitment

process and looks forward to working closely with the new post holders.

The University has expanded its international links with greater numbers

of TNE students than ever, and a presence in new markets, including

Malaysia, Vietnam, and the Dominican Republic.

An on-going shift in focus to offering courses aligned with the regional

manufacturing and business markets.

A new Schools Engagement Strategy, increasing links with local

schools, academies, and UTCs (University Technology Colleges)

The development of niche centres of excellence e.g. War studies.

2.2 Progress of recommendations made by UWSU at the last Institutional

Review

The SU made 18 recommendations in its 2008 Student Written Submission.

Some of these recommendations have been addressed or are no longer

issues of relevance due either to the institutional changes listed above or the

changing needs of students. Recommendations that have been addressed

include:



12 | P a g e

The greater use of WOLF by module leaders to provide students with

more information including assessment criteria, teaching schedules

and resubmissions.

The development of ‘The Gateway’ in the new main reception of the

University, which is aligned to the SU’s recommendation to re-open the

Higher Education shop for prospective students.

There are, however, a number of recommendations from that submission and

from the QAA’s 2008 Audit Report, which the SU considers still need

addressing, albeit in some circumstances not necessarily in the exact same

way as suggested in 2008. The SU acknowledges that progress against some

of the recommendations has been made by the University but considers the

issues highlighted to still be of relevance to the student experience. These are

detailed both in the table at Appendix B and presented in further depth

within Section 3 below. A new set of recommendations has been developed

by the SU, coming out of this Submission, and is listed in Section 4 below.

Section 3: Quality, Support and Academic Standards

3.1 Assessment

In September 2010, the University implemented ‘Learning Works’ or a

refocusing of the Undergraduate (UG) curriculum. In short, this modernising of

the curriculum imposed the move from 15 to 20 credit modules and a

combination of semester long and year-long modules. The number of

modules a student studied changed from eight to six. The University calendar

changed significantly as a result of this with assessment points being

staggered, a move away from the ‘bunching of assessments’ which students

had commented on negatively.

The academic regulations were altered to accommodate these and other

changes and transitional regulations were put in place for students moving

from 15 to 20 credits. Student literature was produced and the changes were

communicated clearly to students and academic staff prior to their

implementation.

The Postgraduate (PG) Taught Review followed this process and,

consequently, a new PG Taught portfolio was introduced in September 2011.

This also comprised many modules changing from 15 to 20 credits (with a 60

credit dissertation) and a change in the PG Academic regulations to

facilitate this. Transitional regulations were also introduced for students to

facilitate the process. The academic calendar for PG students altered

significantly, with a ‘block’ system being introduced. This allowed students to

be taught subjects intensively over a period of nine weeks immediately

followed by assessment.



13 | P a g e

From September 2013, the University introduced a new percentage marking

scheme for all undergraduate and postgraduate taught students. The

rationale for this change was based on feedback from both students and

employers that the current alpha-numeric marking scale (F0 – A16) was

difficult to understand.

The University has stated that the new percentage based marking scheme

will make student’s transcripts more meaningful and improve feedback. New

performance descriptors were also introduced. Both the SU and students

were consulted and able to feed into these changes and the University also

communicated the change to students.

In the SU Survey which the SU conducted, students were asked if they

understood the new percentage marking system. The majority (83.2%) of 872

respondents said they did and 16.8% said they did not.

At the time of writing it is too early to ascertain whether the changes have

been successful in terms of their aims and whether students are satisfied with

them. Feedback from final year undergraduate students prior to assessments,

to Faculty Reps, Officers and the SU’s Advice and Support Centre indicated

that some were unsure how their existing alpha numeric grades and their

new percentage grades would translate into a final degree classification.

During discussions before the change was implemented, the SU did raise

concerns around the University taking a ‘big bang’ approach i.e.

implementing it across all years at once, as opposed to a phased approach

with new entrants. The SU understands that the University adopted the ‘big

bang’ approach as they wanted as many students to benefit from the new

system as possible.

A handful of cases came through the Advice and Support Centre in July 2014

where students on the border of a 2:2/2:1 or 2:1/1st, were considering

complaining/appealing on the basis that they had been disadvantaged by

having the marking system changed part way through their course. These

students stated that they did not understand (and could not find out from

their tutors or lecturers) the rationale behind the conversion rates. As an

example, an A14 grade could be converted to between 70% and 79% and

so students were not sure how the decision was made where they were

placed within that range. The SU successfully lobbied the University to publish

a calculator on E:vision to help students better predict their classification

before their assessments but information specifically related to the rationale

behind conversion rates was not made available to the students .

A review of the implementation of percentage marking was due to be

received at the University Quality Enhancement Committee (UQEC) on 22nd

May 2014, but was not tabled. The SU understands that the University now

wish to review this on a more long term basis, and in company of a review of



14 | P a g e

the degree algorithm, to ensure a better understanding of the impact of the

change.

Recommendation: The SU would encourage the University to conduct a

‘thorough evaluation of the impact of the changes’ in the marking scheme,

as outlined within its campaign literature to students. This should include the

canvassing of student and academic staff opinion, and the level of student

satisfaction with assessment feedback, which should have risen.

The academic calendar will change again in the 2014/15 academic year

with the removal of many year-long modules from existing Undergraduate

courses and the addition of a language option module to courses where

appropriate. Year-long modules will become semester-long, except for those

courses that successfully apply for exemption. The Undergraduate and

Postgraduate frameworks will, also, be realigned. The SU is keen that an

evaluation is conducted on the full impact on students, both positive and

negative, of such a fundamental change in the delivery of courses and,

therefore, in student assessment.

Feedback to Union Council in Semester 2 of 2014 suggested that some

students were concerned that this will mean their getting less contact hours

and concerns were, also, raised about how lecturers on intensive courses

such as law would be able to deliver all the content required within the time.

The SU received feedback (some anonymous) from some academic

members of staff who expressed worry over the short turnaround from

students submitting work after the Christmas break and then starting a new

semester and the effect this would have on students and staff. This is

something that the SU will monitor going forwards through the student voice.

Responses to the annual Internal Student Satisfaction Survey (ISSS) reveal that

between 2010 and 2014, students have reported largely the same levels of

agreement around whether they feel criteria used in marking is made clear in

advance (around 75%). The case is similar regarding if they agree that

assessment arrangements and marking are fair (around 73%)5.

This correlates with satisfaction rates reported in the NSS results for 2011 to

2014, with satisfaction rates around marking being made clear and marking

arrangements being made fair consistently coming in between 71% and

75%.6

The SU Survey in May 2014 asked, ‘Do you feel that the assessments that you

are set on your course are appropriately challenging?’ The vast majority of

5 ISSS results 2010-2014

6 NSS Survey (2011-2013), ipsos-mori.com/nss/results,

https://nss.texunatech.com/ui/staticreports/_pageId/5/_pageVn/1, NSS 2014 Results

https://nss.texunatech.com/ui/staticreports/_pageId/5/_pageVn/1



15 | P a g e

students (89%) said they did and that assessments helped them develop and

expand their knowledge7.

Of those who stated they did not, free text comments made were around a

lack of progression in successive years, assignments seeming too easy or,

conversely, that some assessments were too hard as the topics either weren’t

covered in lectures or seemed irrelevant. Many stated, however, that as long

as they put the work in, the assessments were challenging but fair, and many

commented that it was up to students to challenge themselves.

In terms of overall quality and standards, the SU notes that the NSS 2014 saw

student satisfaction levels fall in all areas bar four and for some subject areas

satisfaction levels were at the lowest the University had seen. Satisfaction

levels were the same as in 2013 in 3 areas, namely ‘academic support,

’sufficient advice and support with my studies’, and ‘changes in the course or

teaching being communicated effectively’. One area had improved its

score on 2013 by 1% to 80%, which was ‘I have been able to contact staff

when I need to’. The overall satisfaction rating for ‘Assessment and

Feedback’ came in at 69%8 The SU does recognise, however, that

satisfaction with the SU also reduced in this survey, by 1% to 64%.

Recommendation: That the University continues to refer to the NSS data, and

particularly that from 2014, to enhance its provision, through targeted action

planning for those courses that give cause for concern.

3.2 Feedback

The Student Charter for 2012/13 stated that all students should receive

feedback from assessments within three teaching weeks. Looking at the

results of the last ISSS (2013) before the University moved to Faculties, what is

notable when students were asked if they received their feedback within this

time frame, was the significant variation by School of the amount of students

agreeing with the statement. This ranged from 54% to 72.7%, with the

average across all Schools coming in at 58.7%.9

In the same year, 64.8% of Postgraduate students agreed they received

feedback within a three week turnaround period10. This increased to 71.1% in

201411. Similar levels are also reflected in the NSS in the last few years,

although in 2014, only 62% agreed that ‘the feedback on my work has been

prompt’12.

7

https://www.surveymonkey.com/summary/AbxagulIAE8_2B7jmr1y1wnZBfeXWkm8E6_2BTPi6Cgm9fU_3D 8 NSS2014 Preview of Public Data (internal document from UoW Registry)

9 ISSS results 2013

10 PGT Survey 2013

11 PGT Survey 2014

12 NSS Survey 2012 & 2013 ipsos-mori.com/nss/results,

https://nss.texunatech.com/ui/staticreports/_pageId/5/_pageVn/1 ,NSS 2014 Results





16 | P a g e

With the consent of the SU Executive Officers, the University adapted the

Student Charter for 2012/2013 to reflect a more realistic turnaround period of

four teaching weeks. It is hoped that this will increase future satisfaction

scores as the SU believes that four teaching weeks is a very achievable

timeframe in which academic staff can return feedback to students. In the

SU Survey, 60.1% stated they received their feedback within 4 weeks for

‘some modules’, 31,2% for ‘all modules’, and 8.6% (71 students) for ‘no

modules’13.

In terms of the quality of feedback, the 2013 NSS results indicated that 68% of

students thought that feedback had helped them clarify things they didn’t

understand. This reduced to 66% in the 2014 NSS, whilst 69.3% agreed in the

PGT Survey 201414.

The overall ISSS results for 2014 revealed that just under 76% of students

considered their feedback on assessments to be useful15. In the

corresponding question from the PGT survey for 2014, 70.3% felt they received

detailed feedback on their work16.

The SU notes that there were notable variances again in the satisfaction

levels across Schools in terms of the quality of feedback for both the ISSS and

NSS surveys for 201317. What is noticeable in the 2014 NSS, after the move to

Faculties was the large difference in satisfaction not only between faculties

but also within faculties, both between courses and within broad subject

areas. As an example, for assessment and feedback this ranged from 25% to

79% satisfaction for courses in the Faculty of Science and Engineering and, for

receiving detailed feedback, from 33% to 80%. One course in another

Faculty (Health and Wellbeing) scored 100% on this latter question18.

All of this suggests that the experience of students varies enormously across

and within Faculties and gives the University clear areas on which to focus

efforts towards improvement and where to look to for good practice around

giving feedback. This could be incorporated into the action planning which

the University conducts annually after the NSS results.

The SU Survey also asked, ‘Do you feel that, overall, the feedback you

receive on your work is helpful and received in a timely manner?’ Only 42.7%

answered ‘yes’, 43.7% answered ‘somewhat’ and 13.6% ‘no’. The free text

comments submitted ranged from students being very pleased with the

13

https://www.surveymonkey.com/summary/AbxagulIAE8_2B7jmr1y1wnZBfeXWkm8E6_2BTPi6Cgm9fU_3D 14

PGT Survey 2014 15

ISSS Survey 2014 16

PGT Survey 2014 17

ISSS Survey 2013, NSS Survey 2013 18

NSS 2014 Course Title and Faculty Summary (internal document, UoW Registry)




17 | P a g e

promptness, clarity and relevance of their feedback, to others stating

feedback seemed rushed, generic and impersonal, or that it was given late19.

A key theme running throughout the free text comments was the need for

students to know how they could improve their future work, what is now

referred to as ‘feed-forward’. This was also seen in many of the nominations

for the Students’ Union Teaching Awards20, with students nominating staff

who explained to them how they, personally, could reach the next level.

Many respondents in the SU survey, it must be noted, appeared sympathetic

to the fact that their lecturers had a lot to do and high volumes of students.

3.3 Curriculum Design and Review

Academic Standards and Quality (ASQ) have been keen to increase student

engagement in quality assurance processes since the last review, and one of

the ways in which they have done this is by employing a placement student

in the department to increase student engagement in quality processes

through ‘the Student Engagement project’. The student placement position

is, at the time of writing, going into its fourth year. Each of the student

placements took ownership of a yearlong project which contributed to the

wider strategic development.

Students are actively involved in validation panels and, where this is not

possible, course teams are responsible for gaining student feedback – usually

through their current students and those who have graduated. This is outlined

in the VAAD guidelines21. Students may also take part in periodic reviews.

In the last couple of years, the University has introduced continuous

monitoring of courses to replace annual monitoring. Continuous monitoring

aims to gather information and feedback obtained from course committees

and log this in a Course Journal accessible via WOLF. This is compulsory for

lecturers and partners to complete. Students, however, may not see that they

are involved in the feedback and much of their involvement may be indirect,

although course reps sit on course committees where this feedback is

obtained.

Course journals are discussed at Course Management Committees where

students are present. Course journals should be updated a minimum of 2-3

times per year, but some faculties vary in practice. A recent report submitted

to University Quality Enhancement Committee22 questioned the effectiveness

19


Students’ Union Teaching Awards nominations, 2013-2014 21

VAAD (Validations, Approvals, Accreditation and Deletions) Guidelines 22

UQEC meeting papers 25/06/14




18 | P a g e

of course journals and suggested that there may be more rigorous means

required to capture this feedback.

Recommendation: That the University includes more information in the course

guides that gives context to course journals and explains how they ensure

ongoing evaluation and enhancement of the course.

Student reps sit within the Academic Structures at Faculty level on both

Faculty Quality Enhancement Committees and Faculty Student Experience

Committees, previously School QECs and School SECs. This involvement is

welcomed by the SU, and engagement of these reps is something that the SU

and University need to encourage to ensure consistent representation.

Module Evaluation takes place mid module and at the end of the year – the

idea being that mid module will allow for modifications to be made for the

current cohort, and end of module evaluation will inform improvements for

the following academic year. The SU is aware that the effectiveness of

module evaluation varies across the institution, as does the processes by

which module leaders conduct module evaluations. Work has been

undertaken by a project group in 2013/14, which included the Academic VP,

to address the inconsistencies and agree a standardised process. It is

perhaps worth noting that improvement to the mid module evaluation

process formed part of the recommendations made in the 2008 Student

Written Submission (see Appendix B).

The SU Survey asked, ‘Have you been given the opportunity to give feedback

on your course and your lectures?’ The vast majority (84.4%) agreed that

they had and through a variety of different mediums, including email, group

forums, via their course rep or in course rep meetings (if they were course reps

themselves), feedback forms, on-line surveys, internal and external surveys

about the University, mid and end of year module evaluations, and WOLF.

A number of students stated, however, that they felt they opportunities to

feedback came too late in the module (for example, once they had

completed the course) and that it, therefore, would not affect their own

education. Others stated that they did not feel able to ‘criticise’ lecturers

without causing offence.

The survey also asked students if they were aware of ‘any instances where

the University has instigated a change in direct response to student

feedback’. The majority (75.7%) stated that they did not know of any. A

number of the free text comments, however, reflected an understanding that

the University had implemented 24 hour opening in the library and had

changed from an alphanumeric to a percentage marking scheme. Some

respondents talked about localised changes - such as to the way lectures or



19 | P a g e

modules were delivered, to assessment dates, rooming or timetables - that

they were aware came about as a result of student feedback23.

A significant change in the delivery of the curriculum across the institution will

come into effect in the 2014/15 academic year, in that all year-long modules

(aside from those with agreed exemption) will be replaced by semester long

modules. The SU will be taking a keen interest in the impact this may or may

not have on the student experience.

3.4 Academic Misconduct

The University has a dedicated department under the Office of the Dean of

Students which is responsible for the development and implementation of

University wide policies and procedures relating to Academic Misconduct,

Student Conduct, Academic Appeals and Complaints. The SU enjoys an

excellent working relationship with the Conducts and Appeals Unit. This

relationship has strengthened in recent years following a change in the Head

of the Conducts and Appeals Unit.

The Unit has worked with the SU when updating the Academic Misconduct

and Appeal policies and procedures, including the introduction of an

academic appeals form. The SU also welcomes the introduction of a

webpage for the department which contains useful information for students

who are seeking advice regarding academic misconduct, appeals,

complaints and student conduct.

http://www.wlv.ac.uk/default.aspx?page=37644

The Unit produces an Annual Report providing a summary of cases of

academic misconduct, disciplinary action, formal complaints and academic

appeals. The report very helpfully includes recommendations for the

University to act on.

Recommendation: The SU would like the University to demonstrate that

recommendations provided by the Conduct and Appeals Unit have been

followed up, either by receiving an update each year in the Conducts and

Appeals Annual Report or via the appropriate University Committee.

The SU has had an active role both in terms of awareness raising amongst the

student body and supporting individual students with their suspected

academic misconduct cases. Over recent years our Officer teams have

delivered lecture shouts to students and more specific campaigns, for

example, videos about collusion and cheating. We have an arrangement

with the University whereby an SU Officer can accompany a student to a

hearing in a supportive capacity. This allows the SU to ensure that the

23


http://www.wlv.ac.uk/default.aspx?page=37644




20 | P a g e

regulations for academic misconduct are adhered to and that any trends in

cases can be monitored.

In the SU Survey, the vast majority of the 827 respondents (88.6%) stated that

they were ‘aware of the University’s rules on Academic Misconduct, for

example, plagiarism, collusion and cheating.’24

In the academic year 2012/13, there were 530 suspected cases of academic

misconduct (plagiarism, collusion and cheating)25. The University has seen a

steady decline in cases following a peak of 623 cases in the academic year

2009/1026.

The Conduct and Appeals Annual Report for 2012/13 reveals that plagiarism

accounted for 64% of cases in 2012/13, collusion for 27%, cheating 7% and

fraud / falsification and other serious offences 2%. International students

continue to be overrepresented in this area, accounting for 43% of all

academic misconduct cases in 2012/13. This is an increase from 2011/12,

which saw 194 cases- 34% of all cases27.

This number is disproportionality high in relation to the size of the international

student cohort (international students accounted for12% of the total student

body at UoW in 2012/13 and 11% in 2011/12). This is most notable at

Postgraduate level, with 74 out of the 94 cases (79%) in 2012/13 being

attributed to international students in the Conduct and Appeals Annual

Report 2012/13.

This is a continued concern for the SU, who presented these findings at the

University’s Equality and Diversity Conference in April 201228 and,

subsequently, to the University’s Senior Management Team. It has been noted

by the University from students that attend hearings, that poor English

Language Skills are sometimes a contributing factor. This observation is

echoed by SU Officers who represent students at hearings and advisers within

the Advice and Support Centre who meet students’ prior to hearings. The SU

would advise that this needs particular attention.

The SU understands that there are several initiatives within the University to

support English Language provision amongst international Students, such as a

Language Café, and other pockets of support from individuals and teams

across the institution (e.g.CLaCT). The SU has a volunteer who assists

international students with their conversational English and SU staff have met

with the Director of the Centre of Language and Communication Training at

24


Conduct and Appeal Annual Report 2012/13 26

Conduct and Appeals Annual Report 2009/10 27


SU presentation for the University Equality and Diversity Bienniel Conference and CMT, April 2012




21 | P a g e

the University to see how this provision might be supported and expanded by

her team going forwards. The SU very much recommends a more joined-up,

structured approach to this language support provision to ensure consistency

and is keen to work with the International Academy of the University (which

aims to prepare international students for ongoing study) to develop a clear

menu of language support.

The SU would also recommend further awareness raising in relation to

academic misconduct across the international student body on arrival in the

UK. (This could be via workshops as part of their induction programme but

such workshops have taken place in the past, (administered by the University

and delivered by the SU) and had limited success due to poor student

uptake).

3.5 Academic Appeals

The University saw an increase in the number of Academic Appeals from 150

in 2011/12 to 216 in 2012/1329. According to the Conduct and Appeals

Annual Report 2012/13, the School of Health and Wellbeing (SHAW) received

the highest number of appeals (80 cases - 53%). The majority of these related

to Assessment and Completion of Study. This data correlates with the high

number of students from SHAW whom the SU’s Advice and Support Centre

advise around early completion. These are most commonly nursing students

who have failed to meet the professional requirements of their course.

The Conduct and Appeals Annual report 2012/13 also notes that it was

evident from appeals that some students would have benefitted from taking

a Leave of Absence from their studies, but did not chose this route because

they were either unaware of this option or did not understand the

implications. The SU has been concerned for a number of years that the

University did not have official Leave of Absence guidance available to

students and staff. The SU, therefore, offered to support the University to

develop such guidance in the academic year 2013/14. At the time of writing,

the SU was made aware that the new Leave of Absence guidance had

been finalised. This is a much welcomed and necessary document.

Recommendation: That, as an absolute necessity, the University should make

the Leave of Absence guidance easily accessible to both students and staff

in order that that they are able to utilise it appropriately.

The report also comments on the number of appeals in which the Remark

procedure was referenced. The SU’s Advice and Support Centre has noted

for some time that the method by which students request a remark has

differed across Schools with no clear, publicised approach for students. This

29

Conduct and Appeals Annual Report 2011/12 and 2012/13



22 | P a g e

lack of consistency coupled with the duplication in functions with the

Appeals Procedure has led to the recommendation that the remark

procedure is removed. This is endorsed by the SU providing that Schools

provide clear instructions to students on when and how to ask for a remark

via the appeals process.

Recommendation: That University guidance is produced and widely

publicised that details for students and staff the procedure for requesting a

remark via the appeals process.

3.6 Complaints

Both the University and the SU are committed to the resolution of complaints

at an informal level where possible, usually via the Student Voice system or by

the Advice and Support Centre liaising with Faculties. In many cases this

approach prevents a complaint reaching a formal level and being sent to

the Conducts and Appeals Unit for investigation.

The SU Survey posed the question, ’Do you know about the University’s

complaints and appeals procedures?’ Of the 872 respondents, 51.5% stated

‘Yes’ and 48.5 ‘No’, so an almost 50:50 split30.

The next question was ‘If you have used the complaints and appeals

procedures, are you satisfied that the procedures were followed correctly?’

A total of 68 students responded ‘Yes’ and 50 said ‘No’.

The University received 166 complaints in 2012/13, a slight increase from 158 in

2011/1231 . The main area of complaint was teaching staff, with the themes of

conduct of staff, communication with staff, feedback and marking being

most prevalent. These were evenly distributed across all Schools / Faculties.

Complaints relating to Accommodation Services made up 11% in 2012/13

and 12% in 2011/12 of the total number of formal complaints processed by

the Conduct and Appeals Unit. This shows a level of dissatisfaction amongst

some students residing in Halls of Residence.

The 2012 OIA Annual Letter to the University32 shows that the OIA received

complaints from 33 Wolverhampton students who had received ‘completion

of procedures’ letters in 2012. The total number of UoW students receiving

completion of procedures letters was 98, meaning that 1 in 3 of those then

felt compelled to contact the OIA, having exhausted the University’s internal

procedures. This is compared with an average of 1 in 7 across the sector.

30


Conduct and Appeals Annual Report 2011/12 and 2012/13 32

OIA Annual Letter to University of Wolverhampton 2012, received September 2013




23 | P a g e

The average number of complaints going to the OIA nationally per University

in 2012 after completion of procedures letters was 16.5, exactly half that of

UoW.

The 2013 OIA Annual Letter33 revealed that the number of complaints from

UoW students to the OIA increased by 9 on 2012, to 42. This was against a

total of 87 students receiving a completion of procedures letter, meaning

that just under half of those students took their complaint to the OIA, against

a national average of again 1 in 7.

In 2012, the number of complaints closed against the University by the OIA

increased from 2011 by 19 to 37. The vast majority of these (22) were

deemed to be ‘not justified’ (against a sector average of 10.5) and the

number ‘partly justified’ or ‘justified’ totalled 7. The most common areas

complained about to the OIA by UoW students and closed in 2012 were

academic status, academic misconduct, and contract service issues

(relating to the course, teaching, facilities or supervision).

In 2013, the number of complaints closed against the University by the OIA

went down slightly to 33. The complaints were, again, mainly about

academic status and academic misconduct but a notable 18% were

concerning financial matters (fees and funding). Again, the vast majority of

cases (24) going to the OIA in 2013 were not justified, with only 1 case ‘partly

justified’, 2 cases were ‘settled’ and no cases were ’justified’.

The above statistics suggest that UoW students are much more likely to take

their complaint to the highest level, when compared with students nationally,

even though they are no more likely to have their complaint upheld.

Bearing mind the total number of complaints going to the OIA in 2012 and

2013, the SU is certain that it was not consulted by students on a large

number of cases, meaning students are prepared to pursue this course of

action without seeking independent guidance first from the SU. We believe

that some students may be seeking advice from external brokers that have

established themselves specifically for this purpose (and who can be costly).

The SU welcomes the recommendations of the 2013 OIA Annual Report which

states, ‘The students’ union is a vital partner in the development and

implementation of strong complaints and appeals processes in universities.

Universities should encourage, support and where possible fund students’

unions to provide free, confidential, impartial and professional advice for

students. The OIA also encourages universities to share anonymised

OIA decisions with the students’ union.’

33

OIA Annual Letter 20134 to University of Wolverhampton, received June 2014



24 | P a g e

The SU was, therefore, very pleased that in July 2014, the University suggested

that they begin sharing redacted copies of the outcomes of all complaints

going to the OIA from UoW students, even if the students concerned had not

sought guidance from the SU. This was with the aim of working together to

draw up recommendations arising from individual or group cases, which

would benefit all students. It was agreed that the University and SU would

meet at least twice a year to discuss solutions and to monitor the

implementation of any associated improvements.

Recommendation: That the SU and Conducts and Appeals department

continue to meet at least twice a year going forward, to review OIA outcome

letters to learn from complaints and develop an associated action plan,

which feeds into the University committee structure.

3.7 Student Support and Learning Resources

A crucial aspect of the student experience at a Widening Participation

University such as Wolverhampton is the support that is available to the

diverse student body. Support services are vital to enable good levels of

recruitment, progression, and retention, all of which the SU is aware are high

priorities for the University.

In terms of induction into the University, in the SU Survey, 795 out of 872

respondents stated that they felt ‘sufficiently inducted into the University and

its processes’. Those who said ‘No’ (77) said that their induction was too short

and that they had to find out things largely for themselves. Of the 69

international students who responded, 54 said that they had felt welcomed

by the University upon their arrival and 15 said they had not.34

The Office of the Dean of Students is responsible for most aspects of student

support, encompassing the Counselling Service, the Student Enabling Centre,

the Careers Centre and Workplace, Conduct and Appeals, and the Student

Experience Team (including the Gateway). The latter team deals with pre-

and post-enrolment, student inductions, the Access to Learning Fund, and

support for EU and international students.

The International Centre deals with immigration and visa queries and ensures

the University maintains its obligations as a Highly Trusted Sponsor. Corporate

Administration manages the Registry function and the student centres,

through which students get frontline administrative support. The STAR team

perform this function for Transnational Education students and PG Research

students.

34





25 | P a g e

The SU notes that the overall satisfaction rating for Academic Support in the

NSS 2014 came in at 76%.35 The University’s new Directorate of Academic

Support incorporates Learning Information Services (LIS) which deliver a

number of study skills workshops in all aspects of academic performance.

The SU is aware that these workshops get positive feedback from students

who attend them and, indeed, received a number of such comments in the

SU Survey. The SU is committed to helping to raise awareness of the

availability of these sessions amongst the student body.

In an LIS survey conducted by the SU’s Academic Vice President in 2013/1436,

students were asked whether they knew about the Study Skill workshops.

Equal numbers (around 35%) answered that they did or did not know about

the provision and 75% of those who were aware said they could access the

workshops when they needed to. The 2014 ISSS results37 indicate that more

promotion would help as there was a slight decrease from 201338 in the

numbers stating that they could access good study skills support (78.2%).

Recommendation: That the University ensures greater promotion of the various

support services and study skill workshops available to students, in particular

to support retention, progression, attainment and language development.

That the University ensures consistency around what services are called in

their communications with students e.g. student centres, Here to Help, student

offices etc. to avoid confusion.

The Learning Centres at City and Walsall Campuses and resources therein

achieve consistent rates of satisfaction amongst the student body year on

year in the internal and national satisfaction surveys. In the 2014 ISSS, 81.8%

stated they were happy with the help and support they received from LIS

and 79.3% were satisfied with the resources and services therein39. The overall

satisfaction rating in the NSS 2014 was similar at 80%.40

In the LIS Survey in 2013/14, 5% of students said they could rarely access

resources that they needed, 27.7% sometimes, 42.6% often, 24.8% always.

Similar results were seen for PC Access: 9.2% rarely, 32.6% sometimes, 34%

often, 24.1% always41.

The SU Survey in May 201442 asked whether students felt the learning

resources provided by the University, including online provision, were

35

https://nss.texunatech.com/ui/staticreports/_pageId/5/_pageVn/1, NSS 2014 Results . 36

LIS Survey Report January 2014, compiled by the SU Academic Vice President 37

ISSS (2014) Results 38



https://nss.texunatech.com/ui/staticreports/_pageId/5/_pageVn/1, NSS 2014 Results 41

LIS Survey Report January 2014, compiled by the SU Academic Vice President 42







26 | P a g e

adequate and useful. The majority of respondents (67.9%) said ‘yes’ and

3.5% ‘no’. Many of the free text comments suggested that the VLE was useful

for students and that they found the staff in the learning centres to be helpful.

Comments were made, however, about a lack of books available for some

courses. This is feedback that the SU has, also, received via ‘SU on Tour’ and

School Councils.

The SU became aware of issues for nursing students studying at Burton

campus around the library opening times through a variety of means43. It

was also was specifically highlighted in the LIS survey where 100% of Burton

respondents stated that the opening times were not adequate44. The SU has

been working with the University to address this as the problem appears to

stem from the fact that the library sits within a building owned by the Primary

Care Trust.

The SU has been involved throughout 2014 in finding out from students how

they may wish to see services extended ‘out of hours’ (i.e. outside 9am-

5pm)45 and so are very pleased that the University are investigating how to

extend provision for the student body. Many students attending the University

are mature or part-time and have other commitments and dependants and

so a flexible approach for these students to maximise their learning is key.

The Welfare Vice President undertook a survey of students who are parents in

the 2013/14 academic year46, about their experiences at the University, with

a pleasing 221 responses47. (Due to a lack of central data available on

student parent numbers, we cannot determine what percentage of the total

student parent population this represents). Financial concerns were very

common amongst the respondents but academic concerns mainly centred

on timetables not being given out far enough in advance and clashing with

childcare commitments.

Whilst some students talked of having extremely supportive lecturers and

tutors, others spoke of a lack of empathy from tutors who believed that it was

the students’ choice to attend University and so their responsibility to meet all

of the required commitments. The respondents were asked to rate the child-

friendliness of the University from 1-5, with 1 being very poor to 5 being

excellent. 17.5% said 1, 19.9% said 2, 40.3% said 3, 17% gave a 4 and 5.3%

opted for 5. The findings from the survey and recommendations made by

the SU were fed into USEC48.

43

Burton Faculty/School Council minutes 2012-2-14, SU Unified Feedback Database 44

LIS Survey Report January 2014, compiled by SU Academic Vice President 45

University Out of Hours Provision-What do students want? SU Report, February2014 46

Student Parent Survey 2013/14 47

Student Parent Survey Results, report by the Welfare Vice President- February 2014 48

Minutes of the USEC meeting of 18/03/14



27 | P a g e

As a result of a suggestion by the SU via USEC, the Dean of Students and

Registry also agreed that, from 2014/15, information will be captured on

enrolment establishing a students’ religion, sexual orientation, and if they are

a carer or parent. This will enable the SU to more easily seek the views of

particular cohorts of students49.

Recommendation: That the SU’s recommendations arising from the Student

Parent Survey, contained with the Welfare Vice President’s report to USEC in

March 2014, are addressed within Faculties and actions taken to improve the

student experience, particularly around timetabling.

The University has increased the number of students with disabilities whom it

recruits in recent years, which is a positive development. The Student

Enabling Centre co-ordinates the support for such students and the SU has

enjoyed working more closely with the centre in the last few years on

initiatives and projects, such as a ‘Friendly Faces’ mentoring scheme.

The SU Survey asked students, if they were registered as having a disability,

how they had been supported at the University50. Out of 872 respondents,

179 students submitted an answer. The responses were mixed. Some

commented that note takers did not sufficiently understand a subject (and

had to have terminology explained to them which was frustrating for the

student), that it took a long time to get support, or that it was harder to

access support on a particular campus. Others talked of receiving excellent

support from their disability advisor, mentors or tutors and of feeling that the

University had gone ‘above and beyond’ what they had expected.

At the time of writing, NUS and Students’ Unions nationally are making

representations to their institutions and local MPs around the changes to DSA

funding and how this might disadvantage students with disabilities. This is

something that the SU engaged with locally, with the aim of ensuring the best

possible outcome and support for UoW students.

An area of focus for the Union and other front-line services across the

University in the past 2 years has been an apparently increasing number of

students on campus presenting with mental health problems, some of whom

will have disclosed a clinical diagnosis on entry and others who may have not

or who have developed mental health difficulties whilst at University.

In response to a number of concerns being raised to the SU Welfare Vice

President in 2012/13, during their induction programme by service-based and

academic staff, the SU convened a Strategising Mental Health group in

November 2012. The group had representation from services and

departments right across the University, including student offices, faculties,

49

Minutes of the USEC meeting of 20/05/14 50





28 | P a g e

accommodation, security, the learning centres, and student support services.

It became clear very quickly that staff needed an opportunity to raise their

concerns in a semi-formal way, via the SU, and attendance at bi-monthly

meetings remained high. A comprehensive action plan was developed

around improving the support for students and staff across campus.

A key part in the ongoing implementation of the action plan was the

development of a new specialist mental health post within the University and

a job description was drawn up between the Student Enabling Centre, the SU

and University HR. A business case for the post, designed to provide a link

between staff, students and external support, was approved by the Finance

and Investment Committee in July 2014, after which it went out for

recruitment. At the time of writing, an appointment was still to be made but

was imminent.

Other areas of the action plan included:

A revision of the guidelines for students and staff around how to deal

with a problem and where to access help and support;

Better promotion of the above;

Enhanced training packages for particular staff;

The possibility of centralising the recording and thereby the mapping of

incidents involving mental health problems across the University;

Improving the support for students and staff outside core office hours;

Clarification of the role and list of Special Needs Tutors (now entitled

Faculty Enabling Tutors);

A revision of the University’s mental health policy;

A revision of certain academic regulations, including Leave of

Absence;

A revision of the process around confidentiality and the sharing of

information.

Regular updates have been provided by the group into USEC. Particular

concerns were raised around the support for students experiencing personal

crises outside of core office hours, for example, in University accommodation,

and the ability of staff to deal with these situations. In a meeting of the group

in January 2014, one Student Office Manager and the Head of the Enabling

Centre stated that they were meeting separately to discuss how best to

process around 2,500 Extenuating Circumstances submissions that had cited

depression, stress or low mood51.

Around 1600 students of the University live in University-owned

accommodation, based at City, Walsall and Telford campuses. The SU’s

Advice and Support Centre has developed a positive working relationship

with accommodation services in dealing with students’ requests for release

51

Minutes of meeting of Strategising Mental Health Group held on16/01/2014



29 | P a g e

from their halls licence. In the 2012/13, 11% of all complaints received by the

University concerned accommodation52, mainly around charges, fire alarms

and customer service.

The main areas of concern for the SU arising from the latest annual

accommodation survey (published in March 2014)53 are around:

- the level of general satisfaction amongst students living in University

accommodation (73.4%). This figure declined from 2011/12, when

44.64% stated they were Satisfied, 42.12 % were ‘Average’, and 14.16%

were Not Satisfied; this was reported as an 80% overall satisfaction rate;

- the number of students experiencing problems on their first day in halls

(20.6%) – this decreased slightly from the previous year when it was

22%;

- 34.3% of respondents did not know who their RA was;

- the number of students who reported a repair which wasn’t fixed within

the timescale given (25.1%);

- a number of respondents – 31.8% - stated they would not return to

University accommodation. This was 36% in 2011/12.

The SU noted that no action plan or recommendations were initially attached

to the 2012/13 accommodation survey results. This was then addressed and

an action plan drawn up by Accommodation Services together with the SU.

Progress against the plan is being tracked through monthly meetings and any

subsequent annual report will detail the associated outcomes.

Recommendation: That the SU, Dean of Students and Accommodation

Services continue to work together to improve satisfaction rates (through

agreed targets) amongst students living in University halls of residences.

Recommendation: That the University continues to review the support

provided to students who could be deemed to be ‘vulnerable adults’ as a

result of mental ill-health, as it continues to widen participation.

3.8 Personal Tutoring

The Student Charter states that students can expect ‘a named personal tutor

or supervisor to support you through your studies; to meet with you regularly

and maintain a log of all communication. The first contact should be within

the first three weeks of any course of study’.

Students’ Personal Tutors are listed via E:Vision, where their name and contact

details are provided. There is also a direct link to the Personal Tutoring

webpages which outlines the relationship between students and their

personal tutors, and the responsibilities of each party. Whilst there will be 52


Annual Accommodation Survey 2013/14



30 | P a g e

good practice in personal tutoring across the institution, we are aware from

the cases seen through our advice and support centre that not all UoW

students experience this.

In the 2014 ISSS results, there was an overall positive response to students

agreeing that their personal tutor had been helpful54. What is concerning,

however, is an apparent disparity between faculties, which varied over 20%

in the best and worst case: Faculty of Education, Health and Wellbeing –

71.9% and Faculty of Social Science – 52.7%.

A total of 79.7% of students agreed that they could ‘contact academic staff

when needed, although we recognise that this does not necessarily mean

their personal tutor. Discussions with some of the winners of the Students’

Union Teaching Awards in 2014 revealed that there are academic staff from

whom students will seek advice even though they aren’t their personal tutor

because they know this particular member of staff will be helpful. The

academics stated that this sometimes frustrated them but they were

adamant that the students needed to seek the help from someone reliable

and committed and they were very willing to be that person.

The Centre for Academic Practice drafted a new Personal Tutoring policy in

the academic year 2013/14, which was reviewed via the University

Committee process. In June 2014, the decision was taken to shelve the

publication of this policy and, therefore, the policy that students can access

via the University website remains that from 2012. The SU understands that it is

the University’s intention to ensure a new Personal Tutoring Policy will be more

aligned to the Higher Education Achievement Record and will better reflect

the input of personal tutors. This is something the SU would welcome.

Recommendation: That the University implements a revised personal tutoring

policy by September 2015, to include key performance indicators and

greater accountability.

3.9 International Students

Figures from Registry in February 2014, showed that the University had 1,084

UK based international students and 865 TNE students studying

Wolverhampton courses.

The support for international students has also been an area of focus for the

SU’s Executive Committee since the last QAA review. In the academic year

2012/13, the President and Vice Presidents successfully negotiated various

changes to benefit international students, including the timings of some

degree ceremonies, the scrapping of deposits being charged for the use of

54

ISSS (2014) Results



31 | P a g e

equipment on some courses (when home students were not charged) and

the establishment of a hardship fund to which international students could

apply if they were in dire, temporary financial need.

As stated elsewhere in Section 3 of this report, a concern that remains for the

SU is the ongoing, high level of academic misconduct being attributed to

international students at the University. The SU understands from the Conduct

and Appeals department that a significant proportion of cases of academic

misconduct are committed by TNE students. No recommendations have

been made, however, that appear to address this issue specifically.

Recommendation: That the University develops specific targets and actions

around reducing the % of academic misconduct committed by international

and TNE students, including greater promotion of Turnitin.

Another area of importance is the prevalence of poor language skills

amongst some international students, which was also highlighted in the most

recent Conduct and Appeals annual report. The Advice and Support Centre

see a number of student clients who find the spoken and written word

extremely difficult and who express the need for more language support. As

a result of this, the Union has undertaken to work more closely with LIS and the

new International Academy going forward to ensure a much clearer ‘offer’

is communicated to all students around language development as there is

support available but many students and staff are not necessarily aware that

it exists.

The SU is aware that this issue and that of ‘academic literacy’ is likely not one

that only affects international students but, also, a proportion of ‘home’

students who have grown up in environments where English is not the first

language. In the SU Survey, only 28 out of 872 respondents felt they needed

language support and had, also, received some support55. The vast majority

found this support to be effective, suggesting that, those who seek it out do

find it beneficial.

A comprehensive report from External Examiners presented to the University’s

Quality Enhancement Committee (UQEC) in December 201356 on various

courses, pointed in parts to ‘poor writing of some students’ and a focus in

marking and feedback on the levels of correct English submitted by students

whose English is not their first language, as opposed to ‘quality of content

and critique’.

The SU suggests that this would become an understandable, almost

inevitable, practice by academics if they are routinely seeing work submitted

55


UQEC meeting of 12/12/13, Paper 13/23.1 Issues arising from Questions1,2,3 of External Examiner MRB

Reports




32 | P a g e

containing poor language and grammar. It is an issue that the SU believes

will not go away, however, and so needs attention going forwards.

Recommendation: That there is comprehensive promotion of the various

support services available to home and international students, in particular to

support retention, progression and language development.

3.10 Post Graduate Taught and Research students

The SU is aware that its engagement with Postgraduate students across the

University could be improved but is confident that, particularly in the

academic year 2013/14, through the ‘SU on Tour’ programme and the

relationship with the new Doctoral College, it made significant in-roads into

better representing the PG student voice. The University is keen to expand its

research reputation and PG numbers and so the SU needs to provide a

credible voice for these students.

To this end, the SU wanted to deliver its own survey to support the writing of

this report in Spring 2014 but were asked not to do so by the University’s

Research Hub due to their sending out an Internal Postgraduate Research

Experience Survey (iPRES) in April 2014 and not wishing students to be ‘over-

surveyed. The SU understands that it can be difficult to encourage PG

students to engage with surveys, as the PTES has shown year on year.

The SU was pleased that in the University’s Postgraduate Taught

Experience Survey in 201457, the overall satisfaction with ‘quality of the

course’ was at 84%.

The PTES 2012 results released in October of that year58 revealed that 21.6% of

342 respondents would not recommend Wolverhampton to a friend or

relative as a place to study. This number had decreased from the survey

undertaken in 201059 (when only 56% would recommend the University) but

the number of respondents was lower than in the 2010 survey. Similar to the

2010 results, in 2012, areas of least satisfaction were related to staff contact

and support and of most satisfaction to library resources and the

development of their research skills. The majority of respondents were

satisfied with the PGT programmes but there were still significant percentages

that were less than satisfied with aspects such as organisation and

communication of changes, the development of personal skills, and clarity

around standards required for dissertations.

57

PTES (2014) Results 58


PTES (2010) Results



33 | P a g e

The PTES survey results in October 201360 had 5% of 2,900 students responding.

Respondents were, overall, positive about teaching staff and that the course

was intellectually stimulating, as well as about timetabling, organisation and

communication. There were lower satisfaction rates when it came to

students agreeing that their assessments were marked and returned within

the 3 week assessment periods and that they received detailed feedback.

The 2014 PTES had more respondents, with over 11% of PGT students taking

part (the total number of PGT students enrolled in that academic year being

2,595). Satisfaction with teaching and course content had increased from

2013, as had assessment/feedback turn around and the clarity of marking

criteria. The percentage of students feeling their feedback had helped

clarify things they didn’t understand reduced slightly to 69.3%.

The numbers agreeing that they were able to contact teaching staff when

they needed reduced by over 7% to 83.9%, communication about changes

to the course reduced by 6% to 78.8%, and over 14% of students, as in 2013,

did not feel they had adequate support from their dissertation/project

supervisor.

Satisfaction around access to IT resources had also reduced from 2013 - from

92.8% to 87.1% - and scores around personal skill development and study skill

support also decreased. The number who would recommend UoW to others

was the same as 2013 at just under 82%.

It seems that there has been steady improvement over recent years in

satisfaction rates of PGT students but there still remain pockets of

dissatisfaction that need to be addressed to ensure the numbers of students

recommending the University to others increases year on year. The SU

believes that personal recommendations (or otherwise) have a significant

impact on the University’s recruitment (if not easily quantifiable).

The 2013 and 2014 PTES surveys also asked a question around satisfaction with

the SU in general. As expected, the satisfaction was lower than with UG

students at 53.6% and 54.1% respectively61 (this was 64.6% in the 2014 ISSS62)

and is something the SU is determined to improve, through better

engagement.

In January 2014, the summary report and resulting action plan of the PG

Research Experience Survey (PRES) conducted from March to May 2013 were

presented to USEC63. Around 32% of the PGR population completed the

survey (100 students). 75 stated that they were satisfied with their overall

research experience at Wolverhampton.

60


PTES (2013 and 2014) Results 62


USEC meeting of 21/01/14 – Paper 13/20.1: Executive report from the PRES Results (2013)



34 | P a g e

In terms of expertise, contact and feedback or supervisory teams, as well as

library facilities and the inductions students had received, 80% reported that

they were satisfied. The majority also stated they understood the assessment

processes and had developed personally at their time at the University.

Fewer students were satisfied with their access to specialist equipment and

pastoral support. There have been a number of concerns raised to the SU this

year by Postgraduate and part-time students - via SU on tour64 and through a

specific survey around ‘out of hours’ provision65 - in particular about the

availability of and access to specialist software, equipment, resources and

facilities (labs and workshops) they need for their studies or research.

The 2014 ISSS and PGT Survey results both saw a decline in satisfaction rates

for these areas66. This is something that the SU is keen for the University to

address as it aims to increase its Research portfolio and continue to recruit

mature, part-time students (who are statistically more likely to complain if

they are unhappy).

Whilst there were differing detailed responses at a school level, the overall

areas of least satisfaction revealed in the 2013 PRES67 were how the University

values or responds to students’ feedback and their involvement in the wider

research community. As mentioned above, the SU is determined to increase

its representation of PG students (many of whom are part-time) in the coming

years to ensure their feedback is acted upon. This is very important at a time

when the University is aiming to enhance its reputation and recruitment

around research, as well as increase its number of part-time students.

Recommendation: That the University improves access to specialist

equipment and rooms (labs and workshops), particularly for part-time and

post graduate students.

In June 2014, SU staff met with 20 PGR students, prior to the University

Research Committee (URC)68, who had been assigned to collect the views of

fellow students. Discussions centred on their experiences as research students

who came mainly from the Faculty of Science and Engineering but, also,

from the Faculty of Social Sciences, CADRE, MRC, R.I.I.L.P, and Law. Salient

points, minuted to be fed back to URC, included:

A widespread concern about a lack of teaching opportunities the

students felt they were given, which was vital for them to become a

Doctor in their field. Some felt this made them ‘unemployable’ as

64

SU Unified Feedback Database 65

University Out of Hours Provision-What do students want? SU Report, February2014 66

ISSS and PTES (2014) Results 67

PRES (2013) Results 68

Minutes of Postgraduate Research meeting held on 02/06/2014



35 | P a g e

direct teaching experience would be required by future employers.

Issues were stated around their ability to undertake the PG Certificate

in Higher Education due to the number of hours they were required to

commit, alongside their PhD;

Complaints about a lack of workspace and about the quality of some

PC’s in the library and their departments, stating some appeared to be

old or broken;

An apparent confusion about how the funding system worked for PGR

students, in that some appeared to have received funding for

attending conferences whereas others had not;

Confusion amongst all who attended about the fee regulations,

particularly around the 4th year writing up fee and when this got paid.

They stated the information was not written anywhere they could

access;

Some students waiting unacceptable time before receiving their

bursaries;

Difficulties, for some, in receiving answers to their queries from their

supervisors;

A lack of information about what other research students were

undertaking across the institution, for example via a website page, as

they suggested happened at other Universities;

They were, overall, happy with the level of supervision they were

receiving.

Recommendation: That the University adopts innovative solutions to increase

teaching opportunities available to PGR students to ensure their future

employability. The SU believes their skills and experience could be utilised to

help UG students, for example, those who may be ‘at risk’ of withdrawing or

who may be struggling to adapt to the University environment from sixth form.

It is worth noting that a review of the opportunities for PGR students to teach

was one of the recommendations contained within the 2008 QAA Audit

Report (see Appendix B).

3.11 Distance Learners/ TNE/ Collaborative Partners

Distance Learners, TNE students and students on courses provided by our

Collaborative Partners present continual problems in regards to both student

engagement and capturing the student voice. They are a cohort of students

that the SU has difficulty in trying to engage. In May 2014, 35 distance

learner/TNE students responded to the SU Survey69. Of these, 18 stated they

found their overall support to be ‘OK’, 10 ‘Very good’ and 7 ‘Poor’.

69





36 | P a g e

The SU’s internal Rep systems do not currently have the capacity to capture

all collaborative institutions’ students’ voices. All institutions have course reps

who report to the University via staff/student liaison meetings and course

committees, but often this is not communicated back to the SU.

The SU President in 2012/13 took a very keen interest in the experience of TNE

students and began to collaborate with what is now the STAR office at the

University on how to improve contact with these students. He also visited Sri

Lanka towards the end of his term in office with the Vice Chancellor to meet

with students studying Wolverhampton University degrees and to raise

awareness of the ‘Student Voice’. The President, consequently, suggested

the need for a TNE student charter, which the subsequent Academic Vice

President and Dean of Students finalised in June 2014, for the 2014/15

academic year.

Over 2013/14, the Academic VP continued efforts to engage TNE students in

particular, beginning with a pilot at the University’s branch campus in

Mauritius. This involved creating a reporting function to faculty councils in the

main four UK campuses. TNE course reps were emailed a faculty report to

complete which would then be returned to the Academic VP for her to

submit into faculty councils. As it happened, this was only applicable to the

Faculty of Social Sciences, and was well received.

The Academic VP also tried to establish a relationship with the Academy of

Music and Sound, one of the University’s collaborative providers. Part of this

was to try and increase NSS responses for the University and question 23

about the Students’ Union as we historically and understandably see low

score from these students. This work consisted of visiting three institutions -

Gateshead, Southampton and Birmingham - as well as Skyping Exeter. The

feedback from students varied and clearly some students are having a better

experience than others. This feedback was passed on to the University to act

upon.

The SU recognises that the above is just a drop in the ocean as it is limited to

the resources it has available. There are, as well, the cultural idiosyncrasies

that can affect some students abroad from engaging in representation. The

NUS have recently released guidelines on engaging TNE students70 and from

these we have developed our own recommendations to work on moving

forward71. The SU is keen to develop ways, in partnership with the University,

on improving the engagement of its members in collaborative institutions.

70

NUS research paper, ‘The Challenges of a Partnership and Representation in a Global Context’, published

16/04/14 71

Support and Engagement of Transnational students – SU recommendations arising from the NUS research,

May 2014



37 | P a g e

3.12 Placements

A number of UoW students are sent on placements as part of their course.

This includes students studying Nursing and Midwifery, Social Work, Pharmacy,

Education and IT. For this reason, the SU introduced a ‘Placement Support’

award in 2014 to its Students’ Union Teaching Awards to enable students to

thank external staff for high quality experiences.

A total of 330 students responding to the SU Survey72 had undertaken a

course with a related placement. Of those, 278 were either ‘Very satisfied’ or

‘Satisfied’ with their placement and 52 were ‘Not satisfied’. Many of the free

text comments reflected very high levels of enjoyment and appreciation of

placements and students having had invaluable experiences.

A smaller but significant number talked of being treated poorly on

placement by staff (and not feeling they could complain as they did not

want their marks effected) or complained about the organisation of

placements (with some students feeling that they were given their placement

details too late). Some comments mentioned of a lack of availability of

placements, with students having to find them themselves. The SU does not

consider this to be acceptable and understands that it causes students a

good deal of stress.

NSS satisfaction rates for placements are consistently high amongst the

Nursing and Midwifery programmes, gradually increasing each year from 85%

in 2011 to 91% in 2013 and a slight decrease to 88% in 201473, which is above

the sector average. This is also reflected in the NSS free-text comments for

these courses with students commenting that they received excellent mentor

support on placement and found the knowledge and skills gained on

placement to be one of the most positive aspects of the course.

NSS free-text comments from 2012 and 2013 illustrate that those students

studying Pharmacy enjoyed the hands-on experience gained in hospital

placements. Similarly, students studying sandwich programmes in the field of

Computing and IT also expressed enthusiasm about their placement year.

The SU has received student feedback via ‘SU on Tour’74 and from casework

in the Advice and Support Centre in the 2013/14 academic year75, that some

students within the previously titled School for Education Futures studying the

BEd (Hons) and PGCE programmes were frustrated at having to find their own

placements. Some students were travelling long distances to get to their

72


NSS Results – 2011 - 2013 ipsos-mori.com/nss/results


SU Unified Feedback Database and Summary of SU on Tour for USEC 18/03/14 75

WROSeS case notes (SU Advice and Support Centre), 2013/14





38 | P a g e

placements, whilst others had been advised that they should travel home

(those students who during vacation time reside outside of Wolverhampton)

to find a suitable placement. Students have advised us that this has

disadvantaged them financially due to the travel. They have also found it

unfair that their peers have shorter distances to travel to placements leading

to them questioning the criteria for allocating placements.

Recommendation: That the availability of placements meets demand arising

from student recruitment to the Faculty of Education, Health and Wellbeing.

A small number of cases seen through the Advice and Support Centre have

proved that difficulties do arise when a placement breaks down. (This is

notably in the BEd and PGCE courses and Social Work courses)76. Even in

cases where the placement provider is found to be at fault, the student often

has to wait a considerable time before a repeat placement is offered.

The SU informed the University of its concerns around placements at a

meeting of USEC in March 201477. As a result, the SU was pleased to be

invited on to the University’s Work-based Learning and Placement Forum,

where it presented a summary of concerns to date78.

3.13 External Examiners

QAA believe that all students should see External Examiner (hereafter referred

to as ‘EE’) reports and responses. This is recently been implemented at UoW

via the VLE (before which only Course Reps could access the reports). EEs are

also named for all students in their course guides and the template for the

course guides has been amended to include room for EE comments. There is,

currently, very limited data to evidence if students do access these.

Of 872 students who responded to the SU Survey, 10.1% of students stated

‘Yes’ when asked, ‘Are you given access to external examiner reports for your

course?’ The remaining 89.9% said ‘No’ or ‘Dont know.’79

The SU tried to establish in Spring 2014, through CETL, the number of students

who have accessed EE reports but this information, despite CETL’s best efforts,

could not be made available. This was mainly because the files relating the

School EE reports were too large to access and interrogate. CETL stated that

they had not received such a request before.

76

WROSES case notes (SU Advice and Support Centre), 2008- 2014 77

Summary of SU on Tour for USEC 18/03/14 78

SU report – Placements feedback March ‘14 79





39 | P a g e

Recommendation: That the University ensures greater promotion to students

that they are able to access External Examiners reports and responses

through WOLF/E:vision and for what purpose.

The QAA also recommends that EEs should have the opportunity to meet with

students including those studying abroad (TNE) and in UK based collaborative

partner institutions. It is believed that this creates transparency and context

for students and benefits the understanding of the EEs as well as the students.

It is thought to instil confidence in marking processes and gives students the

chance to see the bigger picture and how processes work in other

institutions. The University has confirmed to the SU that it makes it clear to EEs

that they are able to meet with groups of students if they so wish and that this

can be arranged at a time to suit the EEs. It is then up to the EEs to request

such meetings. The SU is not sure how often this happens.

The University has a specific sub-committee of UQEC, the External Examining

Sub Group (EESG) which summarise and report on external examining

activities and initiatives, as well as any key issues arising. Whilst the EE reports

are not something the SU will, routinely, assess and investigate, it has noted,

via reports presented to UQEC, concerns expressed around poor levels of

English amongst some of the students and, subsequently, questions about

whether academics are spending more time correcting English grammar

than actual content.

A summary report to UQEC on 12/12/13, indicated that some EEs attributed

the English language issues but the SU believes this to be something which

also affects some home students who have been brought up in homes where

English is not routinely spoken. One course team responded that, ‘in light of

the feedback, we will undertake additional English diagnostic testing during

students’ induction, thus allowing tailored support to be identified.’ 80 The SU is

not sure if this happened.

In the same report to UQEC in December 2013 but about a different course,

one EE wrote, ‘I examine in three institutions and some of the work presented

is at the lower end of that spectrum. More resources are needed to not only

reach the standard but also to exceed it and to reach for excellence’ and

‘concerns about the number of people who seem to limp through the course

with very low grades.’

Concerns were also raised by one EE about a particular course that ‘a better

system and standard for examining dissertations to be dealt with for the good

of both the respect that the University is held in but, first and foremost, for the

benefit of the students.’ Comments like this are, inevitably of concern to the

SU but it does recognise that many positive comments are also made around

80

UQEC meeting of 12/12/13, Paper 13/23.1 Issues arising from Questions1,2,3 of External Examiner MRB

Reports



40 | P a g e

staff being committed, taking ‘innovative approaches’, adopting ‘reflective

practices’, and ensuring ‘the welfare of the students [is] always the highest

priority’.

The SU considers a priority going forwards to be ensuring that, through the

new Faculty structure, recommendations made by EEs year on year in their

reports are acted upon consistently across the University. The EESG sub group

summary from their meeting on 5th November 201381 stated that, ‘many of

the items cited as areas of good practice within the overview report of 2012,

if were identified and disseminated across schools would close out the issues

raised and recommendations posed‘. It is important that this is applied to

collaborative partner and TNE provision also.

3.14 Recruitment, Retention and Attainment

The SU understands that the University needs to set itself targets around the

recruitment and retention of students. An independent research exercise by

McCann Truth was commissioned by the University who presented their

summary debrief in January 201382. This had recommendations around how

the University can maximise conversion rates and, in particular, compete

within the region which has a number of competitive HE institutions. The SU is

pleased to have a place on the committees which discuss such strategies

and targets and believes that the levels of student support and initiatives

aimed at retention need to be introduced going forward to complement the

University’s recruitment strategies.

The SU maintains that the University, whilst being one of Opportunity, should

not pursue policies in its recruitment which could potentially set students up to

fail and that the University needs to be proactive in identifying and tackling

root causes of non-progression. The SU is very keen to work with the University

in making sure students are fully aware of academic processes and

procedures and of the support available to them to give them the best

chance to progress. The SU has significant experience in dealing with

students who are struggling at University and, therefore, believes that

additional measures must be put in place to enable progression and

retention, particularly at Level 4.

Recommendation: That the University retains good standards in its recruitment

policies and entry criteria for new students to ensure competence and

reputation are maintained, and that it provides additional and targeted

support where appropriate and necessary.

81

UQEC meeting of 12/12/13, Paper 13/23.1 External Examiner Sub-Group Summary for SQEC’s/FQECs from

05th

November 2013 meeting 82

Understanding Application Trends: Summary Research Debrief (Student Recruitment) – McCann Truth,

January 2013



41 | P a g e

The University’s rate of progression is approximately 75% across the institution

at Level 4. As part of the University of Opportunity offer, the University are

developing a progression plan to improve this percentage. The plan includes

allowing a small number of level 4 students to re-sit for a second time where

the assessment board deems that a significant attempt has been made by

the student – essentially, a ‘near miss’. The SU has raised concerns surrounding

this, both within the Academic Regulations Sub Committee and directly to

the Associate Dean for Culture Change, specifically regarding the level of

support available to those students who may be struggling, and may

continue to struggle into level 5 should they progress.

Having worked with the Associate Dean in the Office of the Vice Chancellor,

the SU has been able to agree several caveats to ensure greater support is

offered, and remains on offer into subsequent years, including Graduate

Teaching Assistants and smaller teaching groups at Level 4. Concerns

remain, however, around the numbers of students who can benefit from such

initiatives and, therefore, the extent to which they can, realistically, impact

retention.

The SU would like to continue working with the University to improve retention

as we may have additional information arising from the students it sees

through the Advice and Support Centre which would help enrich and inform

any action plans. Such information may include factors that might not

automatically be considered, such as financial implications, accommodation

queries, welfare queries etc. The SU is collaborating with the Gateway to

implement a series of financial workshops for prospective students and those

who have accepted offers to inform them of the financial implications and

support when attending University to ensure students are better prepared.

The SU is also aware that the University needs to ensure that timetables are

available at the earliest opportunity as prospective students, particularly

those who have dependants or who are part-time, will often ask very early on

in the application stage when they will be expected to be on campus. To

have this information in advance would, the SU believes, support student

recruitment.

Recommendation: That the University ensures timetables are made available

as early as possible to support student recruitment and enable prospective

students with other commitments to make more informed decisions.

Following on from the University’s Understanding Disparities in Student

Attainment report83 , the SU became interested in the issue around BME

attainment at the University. It understands that it is a long-standing issue

nationally. In 2013/14, the SU worked closely with members of the Doctoral

83

Understanding Disparity in Student Attainment (DiSA): Black and Minority Ethnic Students’ Experience, Dr

Meena Chandra (we believe 2012 – the report is not dated)



42 | P a g e

College and Centre for Academic Practice to look deeper into the issue and

convene a BME Attainment Summit in June 2014.

Updated Attainment figures for the 2012/13 from Dr Debra Cureton at the

University (April 2014)84, which were shared at the summit, reveal that the

University is 2.5% higher than the national average (at 21%) when it comes to

the attainment gap between white and BME students. More white students

obtain a 1st or 2(i) classification (a picture repeated in previous years) and

more BME students obtained a 2(ii), 3rd or pass. The attainment gap, it should

be noted, has been decreasing gradually in the last few years but the aim for

all concerned is to close the gap entirely.

The attainment gap between white and BME students, also, appears to

increase with age as BME students classed as ‘older’ (22 years+) have the

lowest percentage gaining a 1st or 2(i). ‘Older’ white students are those most

likely to achieve a 1st or 2(i) at UoW. The second highest group to gain a 1st or

2(i) are younger white students.

The same can be seen when considering gender; white males and females

both achieve higher attainment levels than their BME counterparts. BME

male students are exceeded slightly by their female colleagues and, overall,

had the lowest numbers achieving a 1st or 2(i). So, in all respects, BME

students trail white students in attainment levels.

The BME Attainment Summit was hosted by the SU in June 2014 and attended

by 77 University staff and students. After information was presented to the

group, table discussions around how BME attainment might be impacted by

inductions and transition points, learning and teaching, assessments, pastoral

care, and personal tutors took place. An action plan was then compiled

with practical suggestions made by the groups85. The SU and University have

made a commitment to review this on an annual basis.

The University appointed attainment champions in each Faculty in May 2013,

in response to the DiSA report. The activities of the Attainment Champions

group (on which the SU has a seat) have been fed back to USEC in a report

in March 201486. The SU is keen to work with the University on the attainment

agenda and wonders if post graduates students who have told us they need

more teaching opportunities, can also be utilised more to support other

students.

Recommendation: That the University and SU continue to work together to

close the gap in attainment of our BME students, via a formal action plan

which feeds into the University Quality Enhancement Committee.

84

Degree Classifications 2012/13, report by D. Cureton 24/04/14 85

Closing the gap on BME Attainment – Action Plan 2014/15 86

Update to USEC meeting of 18/03/14: Attainment Champions Group Activities (May ‘13- Jan ’14)



43 | P a g e

3.15 Employability

The SU is supportive of the fact that employability is at the top of the agenda

for everyone involved in HE or undertaking HE study and that the number of

graduates entering employment or further study is one of this University’s KPIs.

The SU introduced the ‘Employability Support’ Award into the Students’ Union

Teaching Awards in 2014 due to its currency with students.

Information presented to USEC in October 201287, revealed that 75% of just

over 4,100 respondents were in employment of some kind; for 54% this was

full-time, paid employment. Just under 23% were in continuing study or

training and half of these were working at the same time. Just under 11%

were unemployed. Figures published in October 201388, revealed that again

75% of slightly less respondents were employed (59% full time) and just over

19% in further study or training.

The SU notes that there was a significant increase in the number of leavers

employed in 2012-2013. Figures from the last Destination of Leavers Report89

show that, of the percentage of home undergraduate students who have

completed a three year course, 93% of those were now in employment. This

was even higher for students who had studied HNC/HND/FDA course, or were

postgraduate. Of the 3,139 students surveyed, just fewer than 75% of these

students in employment were classed as being in ‘professional/managerial

occupations’.

The SU considers that more work needs to be done nationally around

understanding the quality of work in which graduates are employed as it

suspects that a significant proportion of students recorded as in employment

are in either low-paid jobs or continuing in part-time jobs they had whilst they

were studying.

In the SU Survey, the question was asked, ‘Do you feel that employability or

developing skills for life is embedded into the curriculum?’ Just over half of

respondents said they did (53.1%), with 28.8% saying, ‘I don’t know’. The

remaining 18.1% said they did not. The majority of students answering ‘yes’

said that this was through professional courses, placements, employability

seminars, creating portfolios, and being given general advice about future

employment90.

The SU notes that both the ISSS and PGT Surveys for 2014 showed reduced

satisfaction levels amongst students around the extent to which they have

developed personally through their course, in terms increased confidence,

87

Destination of Leavers (DHLE) Report 2010/11 88







44 | P a g e

communication skills, problem solving abilities and team work skills. None of

these areas saw increased satisfaction levels, which is potentially of concern

when considering the importance currently placed on employability.

Free text comments received in the SU Survey, however, saw many students

express how much they had developed their presentation and

communication skills whilst at UoW91. The overall satisfaction of students in

terms of personal development in the NSS 2014 came in at 80%.92

Student satisfaction with the University Careers service appears to have

increased considerably in the ISSS since 2010 when it was 49.6% to 63.6% in

2014. There was also a 4% increase from 2013 in satisfaction regarding advice

on further study (to 64.6%). In the SU survey, 16% said they were ‘very

satisfied’, 67.4% ‘satisfied’, and 16.4% ’not satisfied’ with the Careers service.

Many of the free text comments, however, stated that students had not used

the service or did not know that it was there. Some offered very positive

comments or that they had ‘heard’ the service was good. Others expressed

disappointment with the service they had received.93

As well as paid employment, which more and more students need to

undertake to survive University, volunteering is now a standard means of

students demonstrating employability. Findings from internal research carried

out by the SU and the University’s Workplace in April – June 2014 with 72

students included the desire for students to take part in voluntary experience

that was linked to their course to help them achieve their career aspirations

and develop their classroom knowledge94. In line with national trends95, UoW

students indicated that the main incentive to volunteer is to increase their

employability skills.

In response, the SU and University have worked collaboratively to

create ’Volunteer Central’, a one-stop shop for students’ volunteering needs.

The centre will move away from a brokerage and signposting service, to

finding students bespoke and relevant, project or curriculum-based

volunteering opportunities. It will be dedicated to training and developing its

volunteers, supporting them throughout the student journey to ensure they

are getting the most out of their volunteering and increasing their skill set.

The SU is very keen that, as part of the University delivering upon an Enterprise

and Employability Action Plan, closer links are developed by the new

volunteering centre within the Faculty structure to ensure that the course-

related experience becomes a reality for more students and improves

satisfaction levels around personal development. 91

ISSS (2014) Results and PGT Survey Results (2014) 92



The Volunteer Survey (conducted by the SU and University Careers April to June 2014) 95

‘Bursting the student bubble around volunteering’ paper (Brewis, Russell and Holdsworth, 2010) and ‘The

Student Volunteering Landscape’ (Ellison and Kerr, 2014)





45 | P a g e

Section 4: Summary of UWSU Recommendations 2014

Suggestions for Quality Enhancement University’s Response Progress

Information and Student Support

1. Regarding Leave of Absence guidelines:

That, as an absolute necessity, the

University makes these easily accessible to

both students and staff in order that they

are able to utilise them appropriately.

2. That the University ensures comprehensive

promotion of the various support services

and Study Skills workshops available to

students, in particular to support retention,

progression, attainment and language

development.

Also that the University ensures consistency

around what services are called in their

communications with students e.g. student

centres, Here to Help, student offices etc.

to avoid confusion.

Hyperlinks have been

added to revised

Student Charter 14/15.

3. That the University ensures comprehensive

promotion of the new Faculty structure so

all students (particularly progressing

students) know where their course sits.

4. That the University considers whether a

clear procedure for monitoring

performance against the Student Charter

is appropriate and, if so, how that could

be achieved.

5. Regarding the agreed removal of the

Remark Procedure:

That University guidance is produced and

widely publicised the details for student

and staff the procedure for requesting a

remark via the appeals process.

6. That the University continues to review the

support provided to students who could

be deemed to be ‘vulnerable adults’ as a

result of mental ill-health, as it continues to

widen participation.

That the University continues investment to

support front-line staff operating out of

hours services, e.g. accommodation,

learning centres, who are required to deal

with problems and crises involving

vulnerable students.

7. Regarding External Examiners reports

within Course Journals (ongoing from 2008

submission):

That the University ensures greater

promotion to students that they are able

to access External Examiner Reports and

responses through WOLF/E:vision and for

what purpose.

Regarding curriculum design through the

use of Course Journals:

That the University includes more

information in the course guides that gives



46 | P a g e

context to course journals and explains

how they ensure ongoing evaluation and

enhancement of the course.

Assessment

8. Regarding the move to percentage based

marking scheme from alpha numerical in

2013/14:

That the University conducts a ‘thorough

evaluation of the impact of the changes’

as promised within its campaign literature

to students. This should include the

canvassing of student and academic staff

opinion, and the level of student

satisfaction with assessment feedback,

which should have risen.

9. That the University ensures that in all

assessment briefs, the criterion referencing

is clear, consistent and informative –

particularly in light of the new percentage

marking scheme – to ensure students

understand what is required of them to

achieve a certain grade.

10. That the University ensures information is

more widely disseminated to students

around how to use the degree

classification calculator.

11. Recommendation ongoing from 2008

submission:

That the University conducts a marketing

campaign to raise awareness of the

implementation of anonymous marking

(due Sept 2014) and carefully monitors the

implementation for transparency and

consistency.

12. The University develops specific targets

and recommendations around reducing

the % of academic misconduct

committed by international students and

greater promotion of Turnitin.

Recommendation ongoing from 2008

Student Written Submission:

That the use of Turnitin for at least one

module assignment should be made

compulsory, wherever possible, for all

course at Level 6, at least.

Feedback

13. That the University monitors, particularly at

peak times, how well faculties meet the

agreed four week turnaround for

feedback.

14. That the University agrees a standardised

process for mid-module evaluations,

monitors the implementation of such and

ensures action plans are completed.

Teaching

15. Ongoing from 2008 QAA audit: Desirable –

develop a more strategic approach to

the enhancement of learning

opportunities across the University, to

include the development of a systematic

Creation of new CAP

under DAS – new

personal tutoring policy

drafted by the Centre

for Academic Practice



47 | P a g e

means of dissemination of good practice

across the University.

That the University details how this work

stream will be taken forward by the

Directorate of Academic Support (DAS)

and the new Centre for Academic

Practice (CAP).

in 13/14 but was

postponed in June 2014

in order to align it more

effectively with the

HEAR.


Submission:

That the University revisits its prospectus to

include information on group sizes and

frequency for all courses.

Some courses already

do this as ‘distinctive

features’


Submission:

That the University adopts innovative

solutions to increase teaching

opportunities available to PGR students to

ensure their future employability. The SU

believes their skills and experience could

be utilised to help UG students, for

example, those who may be ‘at risk’ of

withdrawing or who may be struggling to

adapt to the University environment from

sixth form.

18. That the University continues to refer to the

NSS data, and particularly that from 2014,

to enhance its provision through targeted

action planning for those course that give

cause for concern.

Academic Support

19. That the University implements a revised

personal tutoring policy by September

2015, to include key performance

indicators and greater accountability.

New Personal Tutoring

policy was drafted by

the Centre for

Academic Practice in

2013/2014 but shelved

in June 2014.

20. The SU would also recommend further

awareness-raising in relation to academic

misconduct across the international

student body on arrival in the UK. This

could be via workshops as part of their

induction programme.

21. That the University develops specific

targets and actions around reducing

the % academic misconduct committed

by international students and TNE students,

including greater promotion of Turnitin.

22. Re: the recommendations contained

within the University Conduct and Appeals

Annual Reports:

That the University demonstrates that these

recommendations have been followed

up, either by receiving an update each

year in the Conduct and Appeals Annual

Report or via the appropriate University

Committee.

23. Regarding complaints to the OIA:

That the SU and Conduct and Appeals

department continue to meet at least

twice a year going forward, to review OIA

Redacted copies of first

complaint outcome

letters received by the

SU in July and August



48 | P a g e

outcome letters to learn from complains

and develop an associated action plan,

which feeds into the University Committee

structure.

2014. First meeting in

September 2014.

24. That the University and SU continue to

work together to close the gap in

attainment of our BME students, via a

formal action plan, which feeds into the

University Quality Enhancement

Committee.

Learning Facilities

25. That the University improves access to

specialist equipment and rooms (e.g. labs

and workshops), particularly for part-time

and postgraduate research students.

Other

26. That the University retains good standard

in its recruitment policies and entry criteria

for new students to ensure competence

and reputation are maintained, and that

is provides additional targeted support

where appropriate and necessary.

27. The SU, Accommodation Services and

ODOS continue to work together to

improve satisfaction rates (through agreed

targets) amongst students living in

University-owned halls of residence.

28. That the availability of placements meets

demand arising from student recruitment

to FEHW.

29. That the recommendations made by the

SU arising from the Student Parents survey

they conducted in March 2014 are

addressed within faculties and actions are

taken to improve the student experience,

particularly around timetabling.

30. That the University ensure timetables are

made available as early as possible to

support student recruitment and enable

prospective students with other

commitments to make more informed

decisions.



49 | P a g e

Appendix A - ‘Are you Glad You’re Here’ Survey conducted in May 2014.



50 | P a g e



51 | P a g e



52 | P a g e



53 | P a g e



54 | P a g e



55 | P a g e



56 | P a g e



57 | P a g e

Appendix B

Table of progress made against recommendations contained within the

2008 Student Written Submission and QAA Audit Report

A) Suggestions for Quality Enhancement

made in the 2008 Student Written

Submission

Responses and actions by the University

since 2008 and further recommendations by

the SU*

1 Reduce prospectus lead-times (to

reduce the chance of information

becoming out of date by the time the

student attends).

This appears to be an issue that

technological advances have overcome,

with the introduction of on-line course guides

and an e-prospectus. There are also tools

such as the KIS and comparison website

which are designed to help the decision-

making process for prospective students.

2 Incorporate in prospectuses teaching

group size and frequency for each

subject

Some courses do this as ‘distinctive features’

New Recommendation – revisit prospectus to

include this for all courses

3 Re-open the Higher Education Shop for

prospective students

September 2013 saw the opening of The

Gateway at The George. Designed to be a

‘one stop shop’, The George offers advice

and guidance to prospective students, in

particular, course and careers advice and

financial advice. In addition, The George,

overseen by the Dean of Students, also

houses the International Centre, Conduct

and Appeals Unit and the Access and

Outreach Team who visit schools and

colleges to give further information for

prospective students.

4 Spot-check the quality of module and

course guides across the University

The SU is not sure if students are aware that

the quality of module/course guides is

monitored by other members of staff.

Students have the opportunity to comment

on module/course guide content during

mid/end of module evaluation. Our

concerns revolve around the consistency

and quality of module evaluation. The

Academic VP for 13/14 has been working

with the University to establish a standardised

framework/process for module evaluation

across the institution. A pilot is to be

undertaken in January 2014, with a vision to

implement from September 2014.

5 Ensure all core modules are zoned

correctly for courses that offer joint

degrees

We feel that this is not so much of an issue

now; especially seeing that the offer of joint

degrees is decreasing across the institution.

We suggest that no further action is required

in this respect.



58 | P a g e

6 Engage students in the use of Turnitin

software to help them understand and

avoid academic misconduct

The use of Turnitin has been incorporated into

one module for the use with one piece of

assignment work. The consistency of this

across schools/faculties is unknown.

New Recommendation: This should be made

compulsory, where possible, for all courses at

Level 6, at least.

7 Publicise the Request for Re-mark

procedure, monitor its use through UQEC

and, as a consequence, take any

appropriate action to help ensure all

students are confident of a fair and

transparent assessment process

Following research conducted into other

institutions, the University has since decided

to remove its remark procedure and

incorporate it into the existing appeals

procedure.

New Recommendation: That the University

produces clear guidance on how students

appeal, bearing in mind the agreed removal

of the remark procedure. Both the University

and the Students’ Union (through the Student

Voice system) will need to monitor the

communication and understanding of this

with students.

8 Ensure there is clear assessment criteria

given out in every module, with clear

guidance on what students need to do

to achieve a certain grade, following

the example in the Business School

This has now been implemented across the

institution whereby Learning Outcomes are

listed in each assessment brief. Feedback

from recent school councils/student forums

has suggested that students are still confused

about what they need to do to achieve

each grade, particularly in light of the new

percentage marking scheme.

New Recommendation: To ensure that the

briefs remain consistent and informative and

to ensure that communication regarding the

new marking scheme is ongoing.

9 Create online interactive tools – for

example, an honours degree class

calculator

December 2012 saw the new degree

classification calculator go live for third year

students to use via E:Vision. Feedback from

FSE Faculty Reps in Semester 1 (2013/14),in

the Faculty Student Experience Committee

(FSEC) suggested that they did not feel there

was enough information about how to use

the calculator. They also expressed some

scepticism regarding the accuracy of the

predicted classification. The Academic VP

subsequently met with Registry and gained a

greater understanding of how the calculator

works.

New Recommendation: Information on how

the degree classification calculator works

needs to be disseminated more widely to

students



59 | P a g e

10 Develop and implement a policy for

anonymous marking across the University

where possible

Anonymous Marking is due to be

implemented from September 2014. The

Academic VP for 13/14 has raised concerns

via UQEC about the communication of this

to students to ensure they are aware of the

rationale for anonymous marking and the

process involved.

New Recommendation: The University should

implement a marketing campaign to raise

awareness of the procedure, which the

Students’ Union will support. Careful

monitoring will be needed to ensure the

implementation is transparent and consistent

across the Faculties.

11 Evaluate the success of the three-week

turnaround on feedback across all

schools. Disseminate good practice to

those courses and schools where delays

and a relative lack of quality are

identified

Feedback continues to be one of the lowest

scoring categories for the institution in the

NSS. A re-evaluation of the turnaround period

during the Student Charter review in 2012/13,

led to the University and SU agreeing to

extend the time frame to a more realistic

four-week period in 2013/14, to ensure

students received helpful and constructive

feedback.

New Recommendation: Constant monitoring

of adherence to the timeframe needs to

take place at peak times in the academic

year, as does the scrutiny of annual NSS

satisfaction ratings around feedback.

12 Provide academic staff across the

institution, and in particular within

subjects that are consistently rated low

on feedback provision, with professional

development opportunities in the

provision of constructive and timely

feedback

The University, specifically, ILE ran bespoke

staff development workshops and supported

individual subjects, such as photography, up

to its review in 2013. There have also been

school level staff development sessions and

there are also School Learning and Teaching

plans. Staff are now also encouraged to

complete the PG Certificate in Higher

Education if they do not have any previous

teaching qualifications.

13 Encourage more academic staff,

particularly from areas rated lowly in the

NSS, to undertake professional

development through, for example, the

University’s PG Certificate in Learning

and Teaching in Higher Education

There are currently 37 members of staff

enrolled on the PG Cert in Learning and

Teaching in HE. The University used to cap

admissions at 25, but this was lifted to allow

more staff to benefit. There are two intakes

per year (September and January), and

there are an additional 14 applications

pending for September 2014. The PG Cert in

Teaching and Learning in HE is run jointly by

Education Studies and the Centre for

Academic Practice.

The SU notes that the University’s annual NSS



60 | P a g e

action plan does not make reference to

members of staff undertaking professional

development where departments achieve

low NSS satisfaction rates.

14 Roll out the good practice on retention

shown by the Geography and

Environmental Science department to

encourage other courses to proactively

engage with students who are at risk of

failure or dropping out

Initiatives in other schools have been

developed. For example, the School of

Health and Wellbeing and School of Art and

Design employ graduate interns to do follow

up work with students who are identified at

risk through mechanisms and indicators set

by the school.

The University are working on a Learning

Analytics project, and are working with

SIT/Tribal to develop this. The University have

informed us that the software is ready to

pilot.

15 Identify subjects that have reported a

lack of books (for example, through

staff/student liaison committees and

Annual Monitoring) and ensure enough

core texts and recommended readings

are provided to cover large subject

groups

LIS/DAS assure us that they are aware of this

issue, and they are looking at ways to

address it. The majority of books on reading

lists have been made available as e-

resources, though the reliability of these is

sometimes temperamental. LIS are also

working with academic staff to see if multiple

assignment questions can be issued in the

case that there are large classes. Whilst it is

evidence that the issues are trying to be

resolved, students still regularly complain that

there are not enough core texts available for

all students.

16 Encourage all module leaders to include

assessment criteria, a schedule of

teaching, a module guide, formative

assessment, mock questions, interactive

learning and information on

resubmissions of WOLF

This has been completed.

17 Allow for mid-module online evaluations

with consequent actions being

implemented before the end of the

module

Module evaluation takes place via many

different methods – not specifically online.

Work around the standardised framework for

module evaluation has indicated that

students do not always see actions as a result

of their evaluations.

New Recommendation: To agree a

standardised process for mid-module

evaluation, to monitor the implementation of

such and ensure action plans are

completed.

18 Create an online suggestions box in

WOLF for each course

As far as we are aware, this has not been

done but we do not have any current

evidence that this is still relevant or wanted

by students.



61 | P a g e

B) Suggestions for Quality Enhancement

made by the QAA in 2008 Audit Report

(referenced in UoW Mid Cycle Report)

Responses and actions by the University

since 2008 and further recommendations by

the SU*

1 Advisable: Provide student

representatives with copies of external

examiner reports in accordance with

HEFCE publication, Review of the Quality

Assurance Framework Phase two

outcomes, October 2006/45

UQEC agreed that External Examiner (EE)

reports, together with the University response,

would be placed in specific folders on the

University’s Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)

allowing them to be accessed by staff and

students alike. The EE reports are also

considered at Course Committee meetings

with students present. From the academic

year 2011-12 onwards, reports were also

included in a Course Journal as part of the

University’s revised approach to monitoring.

Consideration of EE reports forms a part of

the SU induction and training of student

representatives, raising awareness and

understanding of these reports and related

process.

New Recommendation: The SU has tried to

establish, via CETL, the number of students

who have accessed EE reports, but this

information was not available (mainly

because the files were too large to access

and interrogate). The SU questions the point

of the Course Journals as many students who

seek advice from our advice centre or

officers do not appear to understand what

these are and their purpose.

2 Advisable: In the context of the

refocusing of the academic portfolio,

review the institutional policies and

procedures for the professional

development of academic staff, with

particular reference to the peer

observation scheme

UQEC and Academic Board have given

particular consideration to how teaching

quality can be monitored and enhanced. In

doing so, the University’s peer observation

scheme was discussed and it was agreed

that whilst this would be supported as part of

the approach to enhancement it would not

form a central role in the University’s

approach to identifying and monitoring the

quality of learning and teaching on modules.

The SU supports this rationale. Instead, the

approach taken consists of identifying ‘at

risk’ modules from various indicators such as

student module evaluations and

achievement data and then providing

developmental support for the module staff

concerned. Such support was provided

through the Institute of Learning

Enhancement at the University. Within this

context the university tried to instigate a

student-centred, evidence based approach:

- instituting a ‘mid-module evaluation’

scheme, whereby individual module tutors

involved their students in the improvement of



62 | P a g e

teaching. Issues arising from this would be

taken forward to the course leader with the

support of the Institute for Learning

Enhancement (ILE)

- identifying ‘at risk’ modules/ subjects

from various indicators such as the Internal

Student Satisfaction Survey, the National

Student Survey, achievement and

progression data and then providing

developmental support for the module staff

concerned. The support is provided by

negotiation with the module or course team

and ILE.

New Recommendation: The SU is not clear on

the value and consistency of implementation

of peer review and if there is any evidence of

its genuinely raising teaching standards. The

SU is keen to understand more about the

process by which ‘at risk’ modules are

identified and how the resulting action/

outcomes are tracked and measured. The

ILE was disbanded in Summer 2013. The SU is

keen to understand how this work (and the

standard of teaching across the institution)

will be picked up and monitored by the new

Directorate of Academic Support and

Centre for Academic Practice (CAP). The

Academic VP has worked with the University

this year to review mid-module evaluations,

with a view to establishing a standardised

framework – this is in response to student

feedback and questions around worth and

value of some methods adopted during mid-

module evaluations. The SU is keen to

understand how mid-module evaluations will

be monitored going forwards.

3 Desirable: Secure consistency in the

provision of assessment criteria at

module level, in the interests of equity of

treatment of students across its provision

The University has updated its Assessment

Handbook (for both staff and students) and

provided examples of generic assessment

criteria at each level. As part of the review

and refocusing of the academic portfolio, a

new centralised system has been developed

for the production of student module guides.

Assessment structures are agreed at

validation and stored electronically in the

module record. This information is then

transferred automatically to the on-line

module guide where it can be

supplemented with additional information for

the student. The SU agrees that this process

has improved and has been more involved

since 2008 in reviews and updates of the

Assessment Handbook, most recently in Oct

2013.



63 | P a g e

4 Desirable: Develop a more strategic

approach to the enhancement of

learning opportunities across the

University, to include the development

of a systematic means of dissemination

of good practice across the University

The University’s Institute for Learning

Enhancement (ILE) had a small senior team

of educational development advisers, each

of whom were attached to a particular

School and attended SQEC, linking in with

the University Quality agenda. In addition,

within ILE, there was a Blended Learning Unit,

whose staff members were attached to

Schools and provided e-development

support for staff. ILE met with ASQ on key

initiatives in order to integrate the quality

agenda within learning and teaching

priorities.

In Summer 2011, the University (via ILE)

instituted an annual internal Learning and

Teaching conference ‘Rich Exchanges’ to

provide a systematic forum for the sharing of

good practice, based on a chosen annual

theme, at which all Schools are represented.

New Recommendation: With the disbanding

of ILE and the Blended Learning Unit in

Summer 2013, this is a piece of work which

will need to be picked up under the new

Faculty structure. Some of the members of

staff who worked in ILE and BLU have left the

institution, which raises the question of

continuity and how the University will be

utilising the information that may have been

gathered prior to this. The SU presumes that

this work stream will be picked up by CAP.

The SU has attended the ‘Rich Exchanges’

Conferences each year to give feedback

deriving from the winning nominations in the

Students’ Union Teaching Awards. The SU is

not sure what happens post conference to

monitor and evidence any wider

dissemination of good practice.

5 Desirable: Review the approach to

research students who teach, including

the identification of suitable

opportunities for them to teach and the

provision of effective training and

support

The University provides dedicated workshops

for the Postgraduate Research (PGR)

Students, which includes ‘An introduction to

teaching for PG research and non-

academic staff’. This workshop is conducted

twice a year. Work continues with Faculties

in exploring opportunities for research

students to teach.

Feedback to the SU from 20 University

Research Committee Reps in June 2014

suggested that PGR students were

dissatisfied with the teaching opportunities

available to them, which some felt made

them ‘unemployable’.



64 | P a g e

*NB Any ‘New Recommendations’ contained in the table above are also

reflected in Section 4: Summary of UWSU Recommendations 2014.

New Recommendation: That the University

adopts innovative solutions to increase

teaching opportunities available to PGR

students to ensure their future employability.

6 Desirable: Give further consideration to

the provision for research students to

provide feedback at local level within

research centres and institutes

Postgraduate Research student

representative meetings have been

introduced which include representatives

from both Research and Professional

Doctorate communities. The aim is to

capture representation from each of the

University’s Research Centres and Institutes.

In order to expand input from research

students the University is progressing with

student representation from each Research

Centre and Institute on School Research

Committees. In developing research

communities and facilities, the University has

made available a suite of rooms for the use

of PGR and Professional Doctorate students.



65 | P a g e

Appendix C - List of evidence and research used in compiling the Submission

The sources of information used in pulling together this submission are as

follows:

University documents or resources

i. University Committee papers, including USEC, UQEC, Academic Board,

Student Affairs Committee, External Affairs Committee and the

Academic Regulations Sub Committee (2008 onwards);

ii. External Examiners reports (where obtained, as part of UQEC papers,

2010 onwards);

iii. Annual reports from the University Conduct and Appeals Unit (2009

onwards)

iv. Annual results from the University’s Accommodation Satisfaction Survey

(2010 onwards);

v. University analysis on annual NSS results (2010 -2014);

vi. Annual ISSS, PTES and PRES survey results and analysis by the University

(2010-2014);

vii. University iPRES results and analysis (Spring 2014);

viii. OIA Annual Letter to the University for 2012 (received September 2013);

ix. OIA Annual Letter to the University for 2013 (received June 2014);

x. Understanding Disparities in Student Attainment (DiSA): Black and

Minority Ethnic Students’ Experience Final Report – Dr Meena Dhanda

(no date on report);

xi. Degree Classification and Attainment Gap 2012/13 report (April 2014) –

Dr Debra Cureton;

xii. Closing the gap on BME Attainment Action Plan 2014/15;

xiii. Report on Attainment Champions’ Group Activities (May 2013 –

January 2014) to USEC in March 2014;

xiv. University VAAD guidelines.

Students’ Union documents or resources

xv. ‘Are you glad you’re here?’ survey bespoke to the Student Written

Submission conducted by the SU throughout May 2014;

xvi. LIS Survey and Report (January 2014) compiled by Academic Vice

President;

xvii. Student Voice records (e.g. School / Faculty Council minutes) and

internal SU monthly reports during 2012/13);

xviii. ‘SU on Tour’ outreach programme – November 2013 – May 2014

captured within SU’s ‘Unified Feedback Database;

xix. SU report on ‘Placements Feedback’ (March 2014) to University Work-

Based Placement Learning Forum meeting;

xx. An ‘Out of Hours’ survey – conducted by the SU (February 2014) at the

request of the University and associated report, ‘University Out of Hours

Provision – What do students want?’ to University Task and Finish Group

(February 2014);



66 | P a g e

xxi. Student Parent Survey, conducted by the Welfare Vice President

(February – March 2014), and associated report with recommendations

to USEC in March 2014;

xxii. Minutes of ‘Strategising Mental Health’ cross-campus working group,

chaired by the SU, 2012-2014;

xxiii. Feedback from focus groups held students with disabilities, BME

students and LGBT+ students by SU Welfare Vice Presidents 2012-2014;

xxiv. Minutes of Postgraduate Research student meeting in preparation for

University Research Committee (June 2014);

xxv. SU presentation to the University Equality and Diversity Bienniel

Conference and Corporate Management Team (April 2012);

xxvi. Students’ Union Teaching Awards Nominations 2013/14;

xxvii. SU recommendations on ‘Support and Engagement of Transnational

students’ arising from NUS research detailed at xxxii. below;

xxviii. The Volunteering Survey undertaken by SU/the Workplace, (April – June

2014);

xxix. WROSES (SU Advice and Support Centre client database) case notes

archives (2008 – 2014).

External documents or resources

xxx. Annual NSS results (2010 onwards);

xxxi. Understanding Application Trends: Summary Research Debrief by

McCann Truth (January 2013 – presentation to University Student

Recruitment Meeting);

xxxii. NUS research paper, ‘The Challenges of a Partnership and

Representation in a Global Context’, April 2014;

xxxiii. ‘Bursting the student bubble around volunteering’ (Brewis, Russell and

Holdsworth, 2010);

xxxiv. ‘The Student Volunteering Landscape’ (Ellison and Kerr, 2014);

xxxv. Destination of Leavers (DHLE) reports (2010 onwards).



67 | P a g e

Appendix D - List of Acronyms

SU: Students’ Union

UWSU: University of Wolverhampton Students’ Union

UoW: University of Wolverhampton

ASC: Advice and Support Centre

HER: Higher Education Review

QAA: Quality Assurance Agency

NUS: National Union of Students

CEO: Chief Executive Officer

EU: European Union

UG: Undergraduate

PG: Postgraduate

USEC: University Student Experience Committee

UQEC: University Quality Enhancement Committee

CMT: Corporate Management Team

EE: External Examiners

NSS: National Student Survey

ISSS: Internal Student Satisfaction Survey

PTES: Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey

PRES: Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (also iPRES)

OIA: Office of the Independent Adjudicator

DiSA: Disparities in Student Attainment

BME: Black and Ethnic Minority

TNE: Transnational Education

LGBT+: Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans*+

VAAD: Validations, Approvals, Accreditations and Deletions

PC: Personal Computer

LIS: Learning and Information Services

DAS: Directorate of Academic Services

CETL: Centre for Technology and Enhanced Learning

CAP: Centre for Academic Practice

STAR: Student Transnational and Research Office

VLE: Virtual Learning Environment

WOLF: The University’s VLE

E:vision: Electronic information gateway used by UoW

UTC: University Technical College

WROSeS: Welfare Rights Online Secure electronic System (recently

changed to Iizuka Case Manager)

DLHE: Destination of Leavers in Higher Education

HNC: Higher National Certificate

HND: Higher National Diploma

FDA: Foundation Degree

student written submission - university of wolverhampton · 2014-11-21 · student written...

Documents