students' union student written submission

1 www.mynsu.co.uk northumbria students’ union Student Written Submission 2009 www.mynsu.co.uk 2northumbria students’ union Student Written Submission 2009

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION

QAA INSTITUTIONAL AUDIT 2009

2 Sandyford Road New

castle u

pon Tyne N

E1 8SB

t: 0191 227 4757 f:

0191 227 3760 w: w

ww.mynsu.co.uk e: su

.enquirie

s@northumbria.

ac.uk

© Student Writte

n Submission 2009

ContentsSection:1 INTRODUCTION

Section:2 GLOSSARY OF TERMS

AND ABBREVIATIONS

Section:3 STRUCTURE OF THE STUDENTS’ UNION

Section:4 METHODOLOGY

4.1 THE NATIONAL STUDENT SURVEY

4.2 POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH

EXPERIENCE SURVEY

4.3 PERIODIC REVIEWS

4.4 PROGRAMME SURVEYS

Section:5 UNIVERSITY’S RELATIONSHIP

WITH THE STUDENTS’ UNION

Section:6 IS IT CLEAR WHAT IS EXPECTED OF

STUDENTS TO BE SUCCESSFUL AT

NORTHUMBRIA UNIVERSITY?

6.1 INTRODUCTION

6.2 INDUCTION PERIOD

6.3 MODULE OUTLINES

6.4 ‘PRESCRIPTION’ OF SUCCESS

6.5 PGR STUDENTS

6.6 SUMMARY OF UNIVERSITY

EXPECTATIONS OF SUCCESS

Section:7 WHAT HAS THE EXPERIENCE AS A

LEARNING OR RESEARCH STUDENT

BEEN LIKE, CONSIDERING

OPPORTUNITIES FOR LEARNING/

RESEARCH AND FACILITIES AVAILABLE?

7.1 INTRODUCTION

7.2 ORGANISATION

7.3 ASSESSMENT FEEDBACK

7.4 STAFF

7.5 FACILITIES

7.6 LEVELS OF ENGLISH

LANGUAGE PROFICIENCY

7.7 INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS

7.8 AREAS OF ‘BEST PRACTICE’

IN SUPPORT

7.9 PGR STUDENTS

7.10 SUMMARY OF LEARNING/

RESEARCH EXPERIENCE

Section:8 OUTSIDE YOUR SCHOOL, WHAT OTHER

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUPPORT ARE

THERE?

8.1 INTRODUCTION

8.2 ACADEMIC MISCONDUCT

8.3 FINANCE OFFICE

8.4 PGR STUDENTS

8.5 SUMMARY OF OTHER

OPPORTUNITIES FOR SUPPORT

Section:9 DO STUDENTS FEEL AS THOUGH THEY

HAVE A VOICE, AND IS IT LISTENED TO?

9.1 INTRODUCTION

9.2 REPRESENTATION

9.3 OTHER METHODS OF GATHERING

THE STUDENT VOICE

9.4 PGR STUDENTS

9.5 SUMMARY OF STUDENT VOICE

Section:10 DOES NORTHUMBRIA LIVE UP TO

STUDENTS’ EXPECTATIONS?

10.1 INTRODUCTION

10.2 ACCURACY OF INFORMATION

10.3 ACADEMIC EXPECTATIONS

10.4 PGR STUDENTS

10.5 SUMMARY OF STUDENT

EXPECTATIONS

Section:11 CONCLUSION

Section:12 RECOMMENDATIONS

APPENDICES

Northumbria University is an institution with over 34,000 students, which

include students in partner institutions, distance learners, and part-time

students. Every student at Northumbria University is automatically a

member of Northumbria Students’ Union, and the Union endeavours to

‘have a positive impact on the lives of all our students’. There are many

channels through which the Union aims to enrich and enhance the student

experience: facilitation of the University’s representation system; provision

of an impartial, free (to the student) advice service for appeals, complaints,

and other academic or welfare issues; provision of Welcome Week for new

students; and a broad range of activities and services designed to engage

students.

Northumbria University has worked closely with Northumbria Students’

Union in order to ensure that students are adequately represented at all

levels. Despite having a comparatively fl edgling representation system, its

growth over the past four years has been phenomenal, and has resulted in

a nationally-recognised, award-winning system, with Northumbria students

having won the NUS Course Rep of the Year Award in the two years since

the award’s inception. The University engages with student representatives

at all levels, from Sabbatical Offi cers right at the top of the representation

structure, to Course and School Reps at Programme- and School-level

committees, as well as its staff developing their own working relationships

with representatives. It is this level of engagement, and the University’s

recognition of the importance of the student voice, that has allowed many

of the student-led changes to take effect, as well as the University’s own

initiatives designed to enhance the student experience.

The student experience, on the whole, is positive, with some common

issues that one would expect to fi nd at any University – access to core

texts, time tabling, and so on. The Students’ Union has been provided

with access to a multitude of surveys and periodic reviews, and has been

able to facilitate focus groups with students from a variety of backgrounds,

including Course Reps, School Reps, Student Councillors, and PGR

students. The rationale behind examination of this cross-section of students

is that the representation system in place is an effective one, and given

resource constraints, meeting with student representatives has hopefully

allowed the Students’ Union to garner the views of students from different

demographics. Furthermore, student representatives are usefully placed

in that they have an understanding of the University’s structure while still

maintaining crucial lines of communication with students. This Student

Written Submission therefore highlights what the Students’ Union deems

to be a clear picture of the student experience at Northumbria.

The views discussed herein are those of Northumbria University’s students

and, as a corollary, the members of Northumbria Students’ Union. Common

themes have been identifi ed and relevant concerns outlined, and despite

some issues being relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, these

issues are often ones where the negative impact on students could be

proportionately greater than the effort necessary to correct them. Attempts

have been made to contextualise, interpret, and clarify these views

where necessary, and the recommendations offered are those made by

Northumbria Students’ Union, based on the issues that have been raised by

Northumbria students.

Introduction

www.mynsu.co.uk 2northumbria students’ union Student Written Submission 20091 www.mynsu.co.uk northumbria students’ union Student Written Submission 2009

Section:1


Glossary of Terms and AbbreviationsCourse Reps

Student representatives at the course level. The method of their selection is

decided by Programme Leaders, as is the number of Course Reps on each

programme. Optional training is provided by the Students’ Union, and they

are supported by the School Reps. There are currently over 1000 Course

Reps to represent over 34,000 students. They are invited to attend Student-

Staff Liaison Committees to provide feedback on degree programme

issues to the University, and Course Rep Forums which are facilitated by

School Reps and hosted by the Students’ Union, and serve as a support

mechanism for them in their roles.

School Reps

Student representatives at the School level. There are 2-3 per School,

with two Reps funded by the Students’ Union in every School, and a third

Rep optionally funded in the Schools of Computing, Engineering, and

Information Sciences, Health, Community, and Education Studies, Arts and

Social Sciences, and Newcastle Business School. School Reps nominate

themselves for the position, obtain 20 signatures from their peers, and

are then interviewed for the position by the Students’ Union. School Reps

receive an honorarium of £300 for their work.

NSU/The Union/Students’ Union

Northumbria Students’ Union

NUSNational Union of Students

PGR Students/RepsPostgraduate Research students are students on research-based

postgraduate qualifi cations, and differ from Postgraduate Taught students.

There are between 400-450 PGR students, and there are 8 PGR Reps (one

for every School, with the exception of Law, due to insuffi cient student

numbers) funded by the Graduate School, and these Reps are students

who nominate themselves with peer support and are interviewed and

appointed by the Students’ Union.

Student CouncilThe democratic body behind all of the Students’ Union student-led policies.

Motions passed with a majority vote by the 37 elected Councillors become

Students’ Union policy for 3 years. The Student Councillors are made up

of the elected Sabbatical Offi cers, Lay Student Councillors, School Reps

(one Councillor for each School, and one for PGR Reps), Caucus Group

Representatives, and Chairs from various groups.

Advice and Representation CentreA service offered by the Students’ Union which offers free, independent

advice to students on academic and accommodation issues, and which

oversees the student representative structures within the University and

the Students’ Union.

Sabbatical OfficersThe fi ve elected leaders of the Students’ Union. These Offi cers are elected

every year into the positions of President, Vice-President Academic Affairs,

Vice-President Communications and Involvement, Vice-President Welfare

and Equality, and Vice-President Activities and Development, and are

accountable to students through Student Council. They are Trustees of

Northumbria Students’ Union.

The University

Where used, will refer to Northumbria University.

Section:2

Abbreviations:

ARNA Assessment Regulations for Northumbria Awards

NSS National Student Survey

PEC Personal Extenuating Circumstances (form)

PGR Postgraduate Research

PRES Postgraduate Research Experience Survey

SITS Strategic Information Technology Services

ULT University Learning and Teaching (committee)

SCHOOLS IN NORTHUMBRIAAS Applied Sciences

BE Built Environment

CEIS Computing, Engineering, and Information Sciences

DESIGNHCES Health, Community, and Education Studies

LAWNBS Newcastle Business School

PSS Psychology and Sports Sciences

SASS School of Arts and Social Sciences

Structure of the Students’ UnionPresident Elected Student Offi cer and fi gurehead of Northumbria Students’ Union.

Represents the Union externally, speaking on behalf of all students at

Northumbria University to conferences, committees, the media and other

organisations, and coordinates and supports the Sabbatical team.

VP Academic Affairs

Elected Student Offi cer with offi cer responsibility for the training,

development and support of the School, PGR and Course Reps, and

development of the Students Union’s Advice and Representation Centre.

VP Communications and Involvement Elected Student Offi cer who has responsibility for ensuring the Union has

strategies in place to widen participation in all Union activities, and ensures

effi cient administration of Union committees, Forums, Student Council,

Scrutiny Committees and other constitutional bodies and groups.

Editor of Northumbria Students’ Union magazine, NU:Life.

VP Activities and DevelopmentElected Student Offi cer who promotes the benefi t of student activity and

is responsible for its strategic direction, and ensures proper running and

administration of all student activity in particular within clubs, societies

and any other form of student recreational pursuits organised by the Union.

VP Welfare and EqualityElected Student Offi cer responsible for the development and

implementation of campaigning and change strategy on student welfare and

diversity issues. Liaises with Northumbria University and acts as a point of

reference for students and staff on student welfare and diversity issues.

Also co-ordinates work with specifi c groups of students including

International, Women, Black Minority Ethnic (BME) groups, Mature, Part

Time, Students with disabilities, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Trans (LGBT)

and students on placement.

Advice and Representation ManagerFull time staff member who oversees Northumbria’s representation

system, including School Reps, Course Reps, PGR Reps, and Northumbria

Students’ Union’s democratic bodies, such as Student Council. Manages

Advice and Representation Centre and co-ordinates Representatives

and Chairs from various groups.

Education CaseworkerFull time staff member who provides advice and support for students

pursuing formal regulations such as PEC forms, Complaints and Appeals.

Builds relationships with University staff and resolves student issues at an

informal level. Represents students at Academic Misconduct proceedings

and provides a Students’ Union view of issues at some University

Committees.

Section:3

MethodologyNorthumbria Students’ Union has used a combination of primary and

secondary research in the compilation of this document. Secondary research

has been used to gain an overall view of the student experience at Northumbria

University, and primary research has been conducted where it is felt that the

secondary research could be expanded upon, evidenced, or contextualised.

The Students’ Union’s secondary research has included analysis of the

quantitative National Student Survey 2006-2009 data and Programme Surveys,

and the more qualitative Periodic Reviews and comments contained within

the NSS. For PGR students data from the Postgraduate Research Experience

Survey 2007/2008 was used. Primary research has been conducted in the

form of focus groups, specifi cally organised for the purpose of inputting into

the Student Written Submission. These focus groups were chaired by the

President of the Students’ Union, Dave Wright, and minuted by the Advice and

Representation Manager, Steven Meyer. Attendees at the focus groups included

Course Reps, School Reps, PGR Reps, members of Student Council, and also

students with no affi liation to any of the aforementioned groups.

A full list containing details of the specifi c focus groups held can be found in

Appendix A. Students were invited to attend the relevant groups and were paid

£10 for their attendance.

The QAA areas of interest are:

• Do students know what is expected of them in order to be successful?

• What is the student experience as a learner like, including teaching and

learning opportunities, support received and access to learning facilities?

• Do students have a voice in the institution and is it listened to?

• How accurate is the information that the institution publishes about

itself, such as prospectuses, programme descriptors and advertisements?

All students involved in the focus groups were invited to answer the same fi ve

questions, which are directly related to the QAA areas of interest.

The questions asked were:

• Is it clear what is expected of you to be successful as a student at

Northumbria University?

• What has your experience as a learning/research student been like

(consider opportunities for learning/research and facilities available)

• Outside your School, what other opportunities for support are there?

• Do you feel that as a student you have a voice? Is it listened to?

• Has Northumbria University lived up to your expectations?

Where clarifi cation of the questions was necessary it was provided by Dave Wright,

who also made it clear when issues raised by students were not specifi cally in

the interest of the Student Written Submission (allocation of funding for sport, for

example). Despite there being just fewer than 60 students consulted in the focus

groups in total, these groups were generally made up of representatives of various

student groups. The Course Rep focus groups, of which there were three, included

Course Reps from all Schools, as did the School Rep focus groups, of which

there were two. PGR Reps consulted their cohort before answering, and were able

to provide questionnaires to their cohort containing the above questions. These

groups were selected as representatives of the student body as a whole, and these

representatives were encouraged to talk about both their own experiences and the

experiences of the students they are elected to represent.

The qualitative research was conducted with the intention of clarifying where

specifi c issues might exist within the quantitative data, and this research is

frequently referred to within the body of this report. There are obvious limitations

to this qualitative research, specifi cally in terms of sample size, but it has been

useful in identifying specifi c issues that help to contextualise quantitative data,

and in providing examples of areas of interest to students.

The report is structured in the style of the questions asked, and responses from

students are further categorised into undergraduate and PGR student responses,

which is the only split/distinction made between groups of students.

Where School-specifi c NSS data have been provided, predominantly in Section

7, the data are from the NSS 2008, and were provided by the University. Each

School was provided a copy of what students in that School had said, and these

data were further divided into subject divisions. In an attempt to explore these data

in such a way as to make comparisons between Schools, the Students’ Union

has calculated an unweighted mean for each School based on the individual

division responses. The term ‘unweighted’ here refers to the fact that the number

of respondents or students in each division has not been used to give more or

less emphasis to any particular division; the mean score for each School has

simply been calculated from the numeric score for each division. So, while not

a truly accurate refl ection of the School as a whole, it does provide an idea as

to the strengths that each School has, and also where there may be areas for

improvement.

Due to a shortage of information, and a lack of any clear representation links with

Collaborative Venture students, nothing has been included in this document

about Collaborative Venture practices. The Students’ Union does maintain some

contact with Collaborative Venture students, but this contact only extends to a

limited amount of casework undertaken by the Advice and Representation Centre,

predominantly in the form of Appeals. Establishing links with these students and

Section:4

5 www.mynsu.co.uk www.mynsu.co.uk 6northumbria students’ union Student Written Submission 2009 northumbria students’ union Student Written Submission 2009

4.1The National Student Survey (NSS)The results of the National Student Survey for the last four years (2006-2009)

are available to Northumbria Students’ Union. The University also provided a

breakdown of the results by School for 2008, and the University’s action plans

that followed their analysis of the results for the past two years (academic

years 2006-2007 and 2007-2008). By inspection, and in the absence of any

other information, such as median and modal values, measures of dispersion,

correlation coeffi cients between the various scales, and so on, the data appear

to be consistent; there do not appear to be any signifi cant differences in

analysing mean values. That is to say that, at face value, there are no substantial

changes in mean scores for any NSS questions over the past four years.

It should be noted that there is an absence of any information regarding the

internal consistencies of the constructs embedded in the NSS instrument.

There is thus a further limitation on the depth to which data can be interpreted.

The point needs to be made that the various missing measures of location

and dispersion, as well as the correlation and reliability coeffi cients, cannot

be derived from the aggregate data supplied. In terms of the latter coeffi cients

also thus precluded is any exploration of underlying factor pattern in the data

that might reveal otherwise unknown differences between the schools. This

preclusion is unfortunate given the importance of the NSS and the time and

effort that students put into it.

What the data do show is that there was consistent improvement in all areas

over the period 2006-2008, which gives the impression that during this period

student satisfaction within Northumbria University has increased.

Furthermore, in almost all areas student satisfaction at Northumbria University

has gone from being equal to or slightly below the national average in 2006 to

being slightly higher or equal to the national average in 2008, which suggests

that student satisfaction at Northumbria University is increasing at a marginally

greater rate than the national average is, although there is by no means

substantial evidence to back this claim.

In 2009 the mean scores dropped in all areas of the National Student Survey,

and while still higher than the scores in the 2007 Survey, there appears to

have been a decline in student satisfaction. The reason for this fall in student

satisfaction is unclear, but the report offers available data and student opinions

that may shed light on this issue. The Students’ Union is keen to work with the

University to explore these issues, and to develop action plans to address any

areas of concern.

It should be noted that without the raw NSS data being made available to the

Students’ Union it is impossible to estimate the reliability of these data, and to

make any actionable observations based on these data is diffi cult. The format in

which the data are presented also precludes the ability to view the correlational

structure of the data. It is impossible to see, for example, whether students who

were dissatisfi ed with one area of their experience were satisfi ed with another

area, or whether broad satisfaction was felt by a number of students or some

students had a fantastic student experience in most areas while others had a

terrible one. It is for this reason that the NSS data will be used to supplement

other data, as it essentially serves to highlight points of interest for further

investigation. These points of interest shall be referred to where appropriate.

Northumbria Year:

Teaching On Course

Assess & Feedback

AcademicSupport

OrganisationManagement

Learning &Resources

PersonalDevelopment Overall

2006 3.9 3.6 3.8 3.5 4.0 4.0 3.9

2007 3.9 3.5 3.8 3.5 4.1 4.0 3.9

2008 4.1 3.8 4.0 3.8 4.2 4.1 4.1

2009 4.0 3.6 3.9 3.7 4.2 4.1 4.0

National Average,Year:

2006 4.0 3.5 3.8 3.7 4.0 4.0 4.0

2007 4.0 3.6 3.8 3.8 4.1 4 4.0

2008 4.1 3.6 3.9 3.8 4.1 4.1 4.0

2009 4.1 3.6 3.9 3.8 4.1 4.1 4.0

Table 1a

Table 1a: Comparison of NSS mean scores between Northumbria University and the National Average, years 2006-2009

7 www.mynsu.co.uk www.mynsu.co.uk 8

4.2

northumbria students’ union Student Written Submission 2009 northumbria students’ union Student Written Submission 2009

Postgraduate Research Experience Survey (PRES)The Graduate School provided the Students’ Union with access to PRES

results from 2008 and 2009. The PRES results have been used where

they specifi cally provide data relevant to the QAA’s areas of interest.

These data have been useful in providing an overall picture of the

Postgraduate Research students’ experience.

Periodic ReviewsThe Periodic Reviews conducted by the University include a Student Written

Submission, and the University has provided the Students’ Union with the

student contributions to these sessions in the form of summarised Student

Written Submissions between 2007-2008 and 2008-2009, one of which

was a Periodic Review of the PGR provision. It is understood that student

views were collected through various committees and focus groups for each

of these submissions and presented to the panels, which, as discussed in

more depth further below, are made up of a few key staff members and a

student representative.

The information available in these Student Written Submissions provided

the summarised views of students who participated in their construction

and their feedback on various academic issues, as well as staff responses

from appropriate departments to the issues raised.

Programme Survey ResultsThe Students’ Union was provided with access to results from the

Programme Surveys that the University distributes to students every year.

These ask the same questions as those contained within the National

Student Survey, and capture the opinions of those students who are not yet

in fi nal year. These results were analysed but were not signifi cantly different

from NSS results, which also had a higher response rate, and so the

Programme Survey results are not extensively referred to in this document.

It is of note that the response rate to Programme Surveys in 2008 varied

between 3-25% and that response rates this low do not offer a hugely useful

sample. It is therefore recommended that the University aims to improve

this response rate, and the Students’ Union has included suggestions within

this report on how this improvement might be achieved.

School AS BE CEIS DESIGN HCES LAW NBS PSS SASS

ResponseRate (%) 24 12 14 3 9 15 14 25 16

Table 1b

Table 1b: Response rate by students to Programme Surveys for academic year 2008-09, categorised by School

4.34.4

Section:5

University’s Relationship with the Students’ UnionThe University works closely with the Students’ Union on many issues,

and the Students’ Union would describe its working relationship with

the University as a good one. This relationship extends, in the case of

the learning and research experience of Northumbria students, to the

University supporting the Course Rep system (at School-level), funding

the representation system, assisting the Students’ Union in the delivery of

training, referring students to the Advice service when there are allegations

of misconduct, and the inclusion of student representatives at committees

at various levels. The Students’ Union believes that the representation

system is central to improving students’ academic experience, and it is

through this structure that students feel most changes are made.

The Students’ Union also works in collaboration with the University in terms

of presenting at three of the annual Conferences per year – the Programme

and Subject Leader’s Conference, Northumbria Conference, and Support

Northumbria Conference.

At the top of the representation structure the elected Sabbatical Offi cers sit on

committees ranging from the Board of Governors to Academic Misconduct,

and Equality and Diversity Committee (for a full list of committees attended by

Sabbatical Offi cers, see Appendix B). Further to these meetings, the Sabbatical

Offi cers have regular catch-ups with Deputy Vice Chancellors and the Vice

Chancellor, where the core issues students are facing are discussed. There are

also regular meetings with the University Secretary’s Offi ce, Deans of Schools,

and Service Directors (Student Services, Accommodation Offi ce, and so on).

In terms of working with the Advice service that the Students’ Union

provides, University staff have been consistently helpful in attempting to

resolve enquiries at an informal level, and this relationship extends from

lecturers to staff in Academic Registry. The University Secretary’s Offi ce

has been particularly helpful in clarifying issues, and has worked with the

Students’ Union on issues specifi c to the Advice service. For example,

when the Handbook of Student Regulations was updated in 2009 the

University requested input from the Students’ Union to provide the students’

perspective on the regulations. The Students’ Union was grateful for this

opportunity and would be keen to be involved in future collaborative

projects of this nature.

The University actively encourages opportunities to receive feedback from

Student Reps, and the Students’ Union receives several requests per month

for student representation on committees at all levels. The Students’ Union

believes that the University is committed to making structural changes in order

to hear the student voice, and these changes are detailed in this report.

Section:5 Cont.


Since the start of the academic year 2008, Sabbatical Offi cers sit on the

Periodic Review panels, which allows for student input, and provides the

Students’ Union the opportunity to ‘oversee’ the process and provide

the student perspective. The move to include student representation on

the panel shows the University’s commitment to student feedback and

representation at all levels of the Quality Assurance process.

The Students’ Union feels that it was both proactive and innovative of the

University to include the Students’ Union in this way. Involvement in the

process is already paying dividends to student representation and the Students’

Union is confi dent that this practice will go from strength to strength.

In 2007 a working group comprising individuals from Learning and

Teaching Support, the Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

(CETL AfL) and the Students’ Union developed a set of materials to raise

awareness, align expectations, and enhance understanding of feedback and

its role in the learning process.

Further to the above projects, the Students’ Union and University work

together to provide Welcome / Induction Week for new students, and

present induction talks in collaboration with the University. There have also

been joint campaigns, such as the Academic Misconduct campaign, which

saw publicity distributed across the University advertising various forms of

academic misconduct. The Students’ Union has worked in conjunction with

Student Services on numerous projects, examples of which include the

Well-being Fair, One Planet, Northumbria Plus and various awareness

campaigns.

In 2007 the University and Northumbria Students’ Union ran a joint

campaign with the aim of improving the National Student Survey response

rate. This campaign was largely successful, with the response rate rising

substantially between 2007-2008, and then falling slightly between 2008-

2009, as shown in Table 2. This campaign is, however, a good example of

a collaborative campaign between the Students’ Union and University with

the aim of improving the student experience.

At a PGR level, the Students’ Union works closely with the Graduate

School at all levels of the Representation system, and the PGR Rep system

itself was initially suggested following a decision by the Graduate School

to introduce some form of representative structure. Graduate School

representatives attend all PGR Rep forums, constantly provide opportunities

for PGR Reps and the Students’ Union to showcase their work in School

publications, and are helpful in resolving all issues. The PGR Rep system

is funded by the Graduate School.

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009

Response Rate (total %) 59 53 70 66

Table 2

Table 2: Response rates for students at Northumbria University to the National Student Survey

Section:6Is it clear what is expected of students to be successful at Northumbria University?

Across focus groups, the general consensus was that it is relatively clear

what is expected of students to be successful at Northumbria University. It

seems that the induction process is fairly standardised across all Schools in

the University or, if not, the core information that students are able to recall

about the induction period and what topics were covered by the University

seems similar. Some students were relaxed in answering the question,

saying that it was obvious even before University started what they would

need to do, while others expressed concerns about specifi c aspects of the

induction process.

“On the whole, lecturers are very helpful, and students are provided [with] general descriptors in terms of how much effort they need to input in order to receive a 2:1, 2:2, and so on.”Undergraduate, Open Focus Group, 21st May 2009

The variation in student satisfaction with University guidelines for success is, by inspection, not attributable to specifi c demographics or Schools, but

seems to lie with the students’ ability to apply this information to their daily

activities as learning/research students. For example, some students felt

that because they, as nearly all students reported, were given the University

mission statement, module guides, and guidelines on what distinguished

students who graduated with different degree classifi cations, that they were

adequately prepared to achieve their goals (though these students noted

that some module guides could be more specifi c).

Introduction

Induction PeriodAnother general feeling amongst students, and one probably not unique

to Northumbria students, is that students are inundated with information in

the induction period and are either unable to devote their full attention to,

or are unable at this early stage to comprehend, exactly what impact this

information will have on their overall degree classifi cation upon graduation.

The content of the material is generally reported to be satisfactory, as all the

relevant information is provided, but it is done in such a way that students

could be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information. The timing of

the process could possibly be reviewed – perhaps students could be sent

out all necessary course-related information/student handbooks before they

arrive to start their course at University, or it could be presented in different

formats. A lot of written information and induction presentations were

described as comparatively dull in relation to the excitement of starting

a new life at University, and whilst the information is understandably

comprehensive and perhaps inevitably verbose, this feedback could be

taken into account by reviewing the material currently on offer.

“Relevant information… is supplied at the beginning of the year, but there is so much information that students are inundated, and may not really read it.”Sabbatical Offi cer, Focus Group, 13th May 2009

The initial documents that students receive in their fi rst weeks contain

arguably the most important information that students will receive at

University, as they deal with very specifi c issues that students are likely to

encounter while at University, as well as providing ‘guidelines to success’

(a range of documents which are interpreted by students in different ways).

Perhaps a way to improve students’ satisfaction with this information would

be to provide students with a list of everything that they are given in their

fi rst weeks, with a short description of what the document is and why or

when they will need it. This type of document would be helpful to students

as they would be able to refer to it when they need something specifi c.

6.16.2

6.3


“Information is provided in a module handbook but it is not always applicable. For example, doing 40 hours per week is not consistent – some students will have long periods without any work and knowing the average number of hours is not particularly helpful – something that could probably be contextualised by lecturers.”School Rep, School Rep Focus Group, 13th May 2009

With regard to the module outlines, students reported that many contain

recommendations on the number of hours that students should spend on

personal study per week. There were two main issues that students brought

up in relation to this practice: The fi rst being that because this number (of

hours) is generally an average it is not particularly helpful, as students

will go through both busy and quiet periods and, as such, are unable to

plan their time accordingly using this number. The second issue raised

is that students may measure their personal study by their number of

reading hours, and not the amount of content they have covered or overall

understanding of the module. The Students’ Union believes it is likely that

when lecturers produce guidelines on recommended hours of study, it is

done so with the intention of aiding students in their time-management,

and is meant as more of a guideline on minimum standards rather than a

straightforward guide on how to achieve success in a module, as some

students may perceive it to be. In light of this issue, perhaps lecturers

should clarify students’ understanding of this measurement, or perhaps

Schools could provide a more accurate picture of what the academic

year will look like in terms of particularly busy periods, and this type of

measurement could be more useful when combined with the ‘average hours

of study’. This type of information could also help students to be more

organised, and, as a result, improve their satisfaction with the organisation

of their particular course.

It would be accurate to say that while most students have a general

understanding of what is required of them to be successful over the entirety

of their course – examples of guidelines the University provided include

utilising the reading lists, preparing for and attending seminars, revising

suffi ciently and well in-advance of exams, effectively managing time for

modular assessments, and so on – problems may still exist at the modular

level. Students still may not know what is expected of them for particular

assessments, and students have reported situations where assessment

criteria have not been clear enough to avoid discrepancies between different

markers (the extreme case would be two similar pieces of work receiving

signifi cantly different marks from different lecturers).

“[There is] a lack of organisation from academic and admin staff, [and] many time tabling issues. [There have been] many cancelled lectures and seminars [and a] lack of coordination between members of staff, [who have] different goals.”Undergraduate, CEIS, NSS 2008

It is interesting that some students felt that assessment deadlines are

provided well in advance and if students are able to effectively manage their

time they should be able to complete assessments comfortably, even if the

deadlines for assessments are close together.

Module Outlines6.4‘Prescription’ of Success

In terms of some of the more negative responses in focus groups, it is

possible that within the wording of the question there is an understanding

amongst students that ‘success’ is a consequence of meeting certain

‘expectations’. These expectations may typically be expressed in terms of

the amount of time and effort spent on learning activities, none of which are

necessarily a proxy for ‘success’. If students thus understood the question

to ask if there was a specifi c ‘formula’ for success within which they could

input suitable variables (for example, attend x number of lectures, do y

hours of independent study, and write z number of words) to achieve a

specifi ed outcome, then they could feel that University expectations were

not clear. It is incontrovertible, and perhaps unavoidable, that students will

arrive at University having undertaken different levels of preparation, and at

different stages of their formative development.

It is also of note that a majority of students are furnished with intended

learning outcomes at the start of every module, which provide a specifi c

list of what is required of them to be successful. Whether or not students

understand these learning outcomes is unknown and this question on

its own is worth further investigation, and could be the subject of future

research. In many instances it will be the case that the statement of

learning outcomes lies beyond the experience of the students and there are

challenges here for contemporary assessment practices.

Clearly, no formula exists for success at University, and, perhaps in some

way, the University could increase overall student satisfaction with their

‘guidelines’ for success by also managing students’ expectations during

the learning process too. A student who understands that no formula for

success exists may be more willing to sit down with their tutor to discuss

what module guidelines mean for them, and it is this student-tutor

relationship that the University should continue to foster across all Schools.

“It’s quite clear – everyone gets told about degree classifications and assessments and it’s clearly laid out, though there is nothing specific about what is needed to be successful. The module handbook and reading lists are good.”Course Rep, Focus Group, 22nd May 2009

In general, most students have had a positive experience of the tutor

system, and have been able to develop a positive and helpful working

relationship with them, with tutors providing to students a list of ‘visiting

hours’ when they are available. Also, a large majority of students, with a

few exceptions, reported an excellent relationship with their lecturers,

and they are reported to be generally receptive to questions when students

approach them. Students also reported strong communication links with

their tutors in terms of regular e-mails and reported that appointments were

easy to schedule.

6.5


PGR Students“Yes. Supervisors are very co-operative and understanding and have a major role in [setting these expectations]”PGR student, Focus Group, 26th May 2009

In general, PGR students are confi dent that there are clear expectations set

for them by the University in order to be successful. Students attributed this

clarity of understanding to having previous experience of the work required

to obtain a university qualifi cation – although obviously this experience

will differ as a PGR student – and suggested that the average PGR student

will have a clearer idea of where they would like to be and what they need

to do to achieve it, which means that their decision to seek a postgraduate

qualifi cation will most likely be supported by greater research into the

programme (and what is required of them in order to be successful).

Through general discussion and consultation PGR students appear to

have closer relationships with their tutors than undergraduates due to the

nature of their assessment and the support it requires, and this support

mechanism could explain why PGR students, on the whole, seemed more

confi dent that they knew what was expected of them to be successful. On

the issue of confi dence, it seems likely that the typical PGR student would

be more confi dent in approaching a tutor or lecturer given the more intimate

cohort numbers that can provide a more personal touch. Overall, PGR

students were pleased that they knew what was expected of them.

The Postgraduate Research Experience Survey mirrors the comments from

the PGR Focus Group – students were generally satisfi ed with University’s

expectations and how these expectations are communicated to them.

There have been improvements in all areas under the heading of “Goals and

standards” and this improvement is encouraging. Meetings between the

Students’ Union and the Graduate School have revealed that the Graduate

School is making steady progress in responding to students’ needs, and

this progress is evidenced by both students’ responses in focus groups and

by the PRES.

PRES Section 5: Goals and Standards 2008 2009

I understand the required standard for the thesis 4.0 4.1

I understand the standard of work expected 4.0 4.1

I understand the requirements of thesis examination 3.9 4.0

I understand the requirements and deadlines for formal monitoring of my progress 4.1 4.2

Goals and standards summary (average) 4.0 4.1

Table 3

Table 3: Comparison of PRES data for ‘Goals and Standards’ for years 2008 and 2009

6.6 Summary of University Expectations The Students’ Union believes that the University has every intention of

furnishing students with guidelines for success, and effectively utilises

opportunities to engage with students in order to communicate these

guidelines to them.

With the correct processes in place to communicate these guidelines the

Students’ Union believes that the University should now conduct a review of

all material provided to students, ask whether or not it is still fi t for purpose,

and look for areas where this information could be improved.

Section:7What has the experience as a learning or research student been like, considering opportunities for learning/research and facilities available?

On the whole, the focus groups showed that students’ experiences as

learners and researchers have been satisfactory, with a minority of students

who reported their academic experience as fantastic, and a slightly larger

minority of students who reported their experience as disappointing. Overall

though, the majority of students were pleased with their student experience

on the whole.

“My placement year was excellent in providing me with experience that has helped me to relate to my studies more effectively. Tutors have been great when dealing with my enquiries and they always make time to see me when I need assistance or advice.”Undergraduate, NBS, NSS 2008

Introduction

An issue that was raised consistently in both the focus groups and in the

NSS quantitative and qualitative data, where students are able to comment

on their responses, is organisation. A lot of students felt that their courses

were poorly organised, not in terms of the course matching module

descriptors, but rather in terms of how the timetables were set out, and

the apparent lack of communication between lecturers in some Schools.

“The timetable system has been very annoying. For example three days a week I may have one early seminar at 9-10 am and then a five-hour gap with lectures at 3 pm - 6 pm. As I live seven miles away it is not viable for me to travel home and then back into university again. This has occurred in all three of my years at university and is something which I feel needs to be changed, as spending five hours in the library then going to 3 hours of lectures and not getting home till after 7 pm is not very good for [my] motivation [and has] left me tired. [It was] also difficult to fit in a part-time job around this kind of timetable.”Undergraduate, NBS, NSS 2008

The following issues were identifi ed in focus groups: having two lectures in a day with a space of several hours in between them, which makes it

diffi cult for students who have to commute to University, because they

do not necessarily want to be on campus for an entire day; assessment

deadlines can be bunched, and almost every student in the focus groups

reported an experience of having two or more deadlines on the same

day, and several in the same week; having peaks and troughs in terms of

workload, where most modules’ workload will go from very little at the

start of term to requiring students to work several additional hours per day

in order to keep up with a sudden infl ux of work; lecturers being late to

lectures; inconsistency in marking between lecturers on the same module;

lesson/seminar plans in particular modules were thought to be unstructured

with the aims of the session being unclear to students; and sudden changes

in timetables due to last-minute room changes or lecturer absence not

being effectively communicated to students. In terms of the last issue,

sudden changes in lectures are particularly frustrating to students with

caring responsibilities who have to arrange care for times when they are at

University. It can also impact upon students who do not live on-campus and

have long commutes every day to be on-time to an early-morning lecture.

Organisation

7.17.2


It is understood that a texting service will be piloted in 2009 in order to

notify students of:

• Alerts from the Library to advise students that loan items are awaiting

collection or existing loans that are overdue. This is already being used

successfully as a live service.

• Messages to advise successful applicants to Northumbria that they have

been awarded a place at the university. Almost 3,500 texts were sent on

A-Level results day in 2009.

• Messages to remind returning students to re-enrol.

• Messages from schools to advise about changes to scheduled timetable.

• Messages from schools concerning coursework submission / collection.

The Students’ Union believes that this system is an excellent addition to

the University’s current methods of communication, and hopes that it will

succeed in resolving some issues, particularly in terms of time tabling. The

Students’ Union is also interested in how the system, if successful, might

be used in the future to notify students of changes to feedback dates, for

example, and believes that it may have many other applications that are at

the time of writing unknown.

It is of note that the University has made signifi cant improvements on the

issue of timetabling, and that sometimes the issues affecting timetables are

out of the University’s control. With a substantial amount of investment in

the estate over the past few years, there can be a knock-on effect on room

time tabling for students. When estate development runs late timetables

have to be rescheduled, and it is likely that these kinds of external factors

are responsible for at least some of the time tabling issues that students

have faced. That said, the Students’ Union believes that the University

should review the way it allocates formal teaching space, as it is an issue

consistently raised by students who feel that more could be done to

improve their experience of this issue.

The NSS results show that, by inspection, students are generally less

satisfi ed with the organisation and management of their courses than other

aspects of the student experience measured by the NSS, such as teaching,

or academic support, which can broadly be seen in Table 1a. There were

obvious improvements in student satisfaction between 2007 and 2008

and this improvement was encouraging and suggests that steps were taken

to bring Northumbria more in-line with the national average, but scores

fell again in 2009, although this fall was consistent with satisfaction at a

national level too.

In addition to the above reported organisational issues some students

reported that they thought lecturers should either communicate or plan

more effectively. There was some concern that lecture material was

sometimes repeated in modules for students on the same course, but

unbeknownst to lecturers, and that this repetition led students to feel

unchallenged intellectually. Whilst this point is one of interest, it seems that

in cases where students from several courses are spread through modules

in various combinations, this situation would be largely unavoidable, as

the material that has already been covered in other modules may be new

to some students. The Students’ Union recommends that in cases where

there is overlap between modules that this overlap is communicated to

students in the module outlines, so that students do not fi nd themselves

unwillingly selecting modules that share content with other modules. Where

this situation occurs in core modules, it should be reviewed to ensure that

students remain stimulated by lecture material throughout the year.

Northumbria University, year:

13. The timetable works efficiently as far as my activities are concerned

14. Any changes in the course or teaching have been

communicated effectively

15. The course is well organised and is running smoothly

Organisation and management - Average

2006 3.7 (3.9) 3.5 (3.6) 3.5 (3.7) 3.5 (3.7)

2007 3.7 (3.9) 3.5 (3.7) 3.5 (3.7) 3.5 (3.8)

2008 3.9 (4) 3.7 (3.7) 3.8 (3.8) 3.8 (3.8)

2009 3.8 (3.9) 3.7 (3.7) 3.7 (3.7) 3.7 (3.8)

Table 4

Table 4: Comparison of NSS results for ‘Organisation and management’ between 2006-2009 (national average for each year shown in brackets)

7.2 Cont.

7.3Assessment Feedback“Feedback varies from module to module. Some lecturers give one word and ideally need guidelines, again, for consistency.”Course Rep, Course Rep Focus Group, 27th May 2009

In terms of feedback, the majority of students in focus groups reported

it to be largely satisfactory, though views seemed to be polarised, with

students either reporting that feedback has been well-received in their

School or that it has not helped at all, or has been late. Students reported

that some Schools provide excellent feedback and there is some evidence

to support this in Table 6. Initial inspection of the NSS data suggests that

there were signifi cant improvements in student satisfaction on feedback at

Northumbria between 2007 and 2008. This increase in student satisfaction,

shown in Table 5, is likely in part to be due to the introduction of minimum

guidelines on feedback and, in particular, providing feedback to students

within 21 working days. This change was highlighted in, and forms part of,

the collaborative Students’ Union/Northumbria University Student Learning

Values (Appendix C). The University is, at the time of writing, seeking to

review this timeframe of 21 working days in conjunction with the Students’

Union, and will hopefully produce guidelines to make feedback even more

prompt than it currently is.

Despite the increase in student satisfaction with feedback at Northumbria

between 2007 and 2008, the scores are still comparatively low when

compared with scores on other issues covered by the NSS, such as

teaching and academic support, which suggests that it is an area where

Northumbria could improve further, and an issue that has a comparatively

negative impact on the student experience.

Certain aspects of the feedback process have provided consistently low

responses in student satisfaction measured by the NSS, namely those

(highlighted) columns concerning promptness of feedback and usefulness

of feedback, which should provide obvious areas for improvement by the

University.

Differences between schools were explored by way of an unweighted mean

score for NSS 2008 responses for subject divisions in each School.

A breakdown of these mean scores by School reveals that the overall scores

for the University have been lowered by a few particularly weak scores in

some Schools, of which the University is no doubt aware. There does

appear to be a consistently low response to one question across all

Schools, and this response relates to students’ satisfaction with the

‘usefulness’ of the feedback that Schools provide to students. A breakdown

of these unweighted mean scores can be seen in Table 6.


5. The criteria used in marking have been made clear

in advance

6. Assessment arrangements and

marking have been fair.

7. Feedback on my work has been prompt.

8. I have received detailed comments

on my work.

9. Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand.

Assessment and Feedback - Average

2006 3.8 (3.7) 3.8 (3.8) 3.3 (3.3) 3.5 (3.5) 3.5 (3.4) 3.6 (3.5)

2007 3.8 (3.8) 3.7 (3.8) 3.2 (3.4) 3.4 (3.5) 3.3 (3.4) 3.5 (3.6)

2008 4.0 (3.8) 3.9 (3.8) 3.6 (3.4) 3.7 (3.5) 3.6 (3.4) 3.8 (3.6)

2009 3.8 (3.8) 3.7 (3.8) 3.5 (3.5) 3.6 (3.6) 3.5 (3.5) 3.6 (3.6)

Table 5

Table 5: Comparison of NSS results for ‘Assessment and Feedback’ at Northumbria University between 2006-2009 (National average shown in brackets)

Comparatively high satisfaction Comparatively low satisfaction

7.3 Cont.


School, 2008

5. The criteria used in marking have been made clear

in advance

6. Assessment arrangements and

marking have been fair.

7. Feedback on my work has been prompt.

8. I have received detailed comments

on my work.

9. Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand.

Assessment and Feedback - Average

Law 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.3 3.4 3.5

NBS 4.3 4.2 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0

SASS 3.9 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.7

BE 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8

PSS 4.1 4.0 3.8 3.8 3.7 3.8

HCES 4.0 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.7

Design 3.7 3.7 3.1 3.6 3.6 3.5

CEIS 3.9 3.9 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.7

AS 3.7 3.8 3.2 3.5 3.5 3.5

National Average (2008) 3.8 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6

Table 6

Table 6: NSS results 2008 for feedback broken down by School. Means are calculated from the average scores from each division and are unweighted.

The scores shown in Table 6, while using an unweighted mean, mirror

comments from students in those Schools who attended focus groups. The

Schools of Psychology and Sports Sciences, Newcastle Business School

and Computing, Engineering, and Information Sciences were highlighted as

Schools that offered excellent feedback and support and, as highlighted in

green, these Schools have largely satisfi ed students. Newcastle Business

School, in particular, received high scores for student satisfaction on the

subject of feedback, and the Students’ Union would suggest that other

Schools look to them for elements of ‘best practice’ in terms of how they

might improve their scores. Other elements of ‘best practice’ may be

visible in a quote from a Course Rep in Psychology and Sports Science,

who said that if feedback cannot be provided to students they are made

aware of this fact and provided a reason why this is the case.

“My lecturers provide really good feedback or let us know if feedback cannot be given within [21 working days].”Course Rep, Psychology and Sports Science, Focus Group 27th May

There is little doubt that the University has made progress on the issue

of feedback, and that in most Schools feedback is more comprehensive

than in 2006. The Students’ Union believes that the next step in improving

students’ satisfaction with feedback practice is communicating in advance,

fi rstly, when feedback will be available to students and, secondly, what

form this feedback might take. If, for example, in the module handbook

or assignment brief there were details of exactly when feedback would be

provided, and the mechanisms for provision of that feedback, students

may be more satisfi ed with feedback in general. The feedback is certainly

available, but students may believe that because they have not been

provided with suitable written feedback on their mark sheet that this

constitutes a lack of feedback, whereas, in reality, they may be able to

approach their tutor for more in-depth, individual feedback, or there may

be general feedback sessions provided to the class as a whole, that could

be equally helpful. Communicating to students that feedback does not

always come in a written format may be an important fi rst step in improving

student confi dence in the feedback they receive.

“The course is not well organised. An example is when 5 deadlines happened to be in the same week; they should be more spread out. Feedback from work in general is poor, and it takes a long time for work to be returned.”Undergraduate, Applied Sciences, NSS 2008

The focus groups uncovered that feedback in most Schools is usually

constructive when it is received, although students report that some

lecturers provide unsatisfactory feedback in terms of it being too broad or

too brief to be of any use to the student. Some students also expressed

dissatisfaction with the timing of assessments in relation to when

assessment feedback is provided; if assessment feedback is provided

to students only after the due date of the next assessment then students

are unable to improve upon their previous piece of work. This situation

has predominantly occurred in subject areas where the policy of having

feedback within 21 working days has not been adhered to, which it

appears is still the case in a few Schools in the University. In this case, the

Students’ Union recommends that group feedback sessions are held by a

lecturer, where students would know broadly what could be improved for

the next assessment, and, obviously, that the minimum feedback period

is adhered to by all Schools. The Students’ Union also recommends

that the University observes departments’ own practices, and looks for

any potential correspondence between departments who choose to not

follow the ‘feedback guidelines’ and student satisfaction with feedback in

those departments. Any obvious correspondence could lead to actionable

improvements.

7.4StaffOn the whole, students felt that they received a good number of contact

hours with staff, and that they saw their staff a ‘reasonable’ amount. Most

students, despite expressing general satisfaction with lecture hours, thought

that staff contact time could be increased, with particular emphasis on

supervised study (lecture or seminar time). Some students reported that,

for example, following the Christmas vacation period they could go months

without a single lecture, and that this lack of engagement was unexpected,

and, in their opinion, unjustifi able. It also, in most cases, left these students

feeling as though there was little evidence of value for money, particularly

considering the increase in tuition fees, effective from 2006; students

were unaware of what the ‘extra’ funding was being used for when they

experienced long periods without contact time. Some full-time students

also reported that they could have as little as 2-6 hours of lectures per

week, and that when compared with students who paid the same fees and

receive 12+ hours per week of lectures, they felt unfairly treated, and as

one student phrased it, “as though they were subsidising other students’

education”. It is understandable that students would be concerned about

low contact hours, and it is recommended that Schools review subjects

where contact hours are noticeably low in order to address these concerns.

The Students’ Union is hopeful that issues regarding a lack of lectures

following the Christmas break will be resolved following the switch to

the new academic calendar, which the University confi rmed following a

period of consultation with the Students’ Union. The students affected have

generally shown preference for this new calendar, and the Students’ Union

commends the University on its awareness of these issues and the steps

they have taken with the intention of resolving them. It is hoped that the new

academic calendar will be adopted consistently across Schools, particularly

in terms of the dates for the start and end of this term, and the Students’

Union will also be interested to note any changes in contact hours that

result from the new timetable.

Students reported that access to staff has largely been excellent and the

majority of students felt that staff operated an open-door policy with either set

visiting hours or the option to make an appointment with them. Students felt

that when they were engaged with staff in a one-on-one conversation, that staff

were helpful and friendly in resolving issues, and were receptive to questions

when they were asked. The Students’ Union notes that this relationship is

crucial to a positive learning experience for students, and it is this relationship

that would allow a lot of course-specifi c issues to be resolved.

Table 7 shows students’ experience of academic support. The table shows

that Northumbria is broadly in line with national expectations of academic

support, and these fi gures are encouraging.

In terms of students’ experience of teaching, the majority of students were

satisfi ed with the level of teaching provided by lecturers, both in terms of

the NSS and in focus groups. Northumbria has always had high teaching

standards, and plays a vital role in the overall student experience.

Table 8 shows that Northumbria has maintained an excellent standard of

teaching over the past few years, and students are broadly satisfi ed with it.


10. I have received sufficient advice and support with

my studies.

11. I have been able to contact staff when

I needed to.

12. Good advice was available when I needed to make study choices.

Academic support, total

2006 3.7 (3.7) 3.9 (3.9) 3.7 (3.7) 3.8 (3.8)

2007 3.7 (3.7) 3.9 (4) 3.7 (3.7) 3.8 (3.8)

2008 4.0 (3.8) 4.2 (4) 3.9 (3.8) 4.0 (3.9)

2009 3.8 (3.8) 4.0 (4.1) 3.8 (3.8) 3.9 (3.9)

Table 7

Table 7: Comparison of NSS results on ‘Academic support’ between 2006-2009 (national average shown in brackets)

Comparatively high satisfaction Comparatively low satisfaction


7.4 Cont.


1. Staff are good at explaining things.

2. Staff have made the subject

interesting.

3. Staff are enthusiastic about

what they are teaching.

4. The course is intellectually

stimulating.

The teaching on my course

2006 4.0 (4) 3.8 (3.8) 4.0 (4) 4.0 (4.1) 3.9 (4)

2007 3.9 (4) 3.7 (3.9) 4.0 (4.1) 3.9 (4.1) 3.9 (4)

2008 4.1 (4) 3.9 (3.9) 4.2 (4.1) 4.1 (4.1) 4.1 (4.1)

2009 4.0 (4) 3.8 (3.9) 4.1 (4.1) 3.9 (4.1) 4.0 (4.1)

Table 8

Table 8: Comparison of NSS results on ‘’Teaching and Support’ between 2006-2009 (national average shown in brackets)

“Like in every university there are good teachers and bad teachers. The teaching depends entirely on the teachers as individual, but as overall [sic], I am happy with the teachers and the course.”Undergraduate, CEIS, NSS 2008

Most undergraduate students said that their courses were intellectually

stimulating, and that the quality of teaching was generally very high.

Students felt that even though some subjects were dry, lecturers

endeavoured to make the subject more interesting, and this effort was

greatly appreciated by students.

“A lot of lecturers/tutors [are] outstanding in their ability to explain difficult subjects.”Undergraduate, Law School, NSS 2008

Table 9 shows that teaching, in accordance with the NSS results was

generally very favourably viewed by students and this response was

reasonably consistent across all Schools, except in NBS and Design,

where there were obvious drops in student satisfaction with teaching.

The balance of assessment was also generally accepted as being an

accurate and fair way of measuring students’ understanding of a module,

and while most students had at least one module that was entirely assessed

by just one exam or assignment, students felt that this situation, where it

occurred, was mostly unavoidable given the content of the module (though

nearly all students agreed that they would prefer assessment to be spread

over multiple exams, assignments, or presentations).

“I think it’s great that [my] course has so many varied methods of teaching and assessment - lectures, seminars, role-play, simulation, scenario problem solving, discussions, exams, presentations, essays, long studies etc. Because this ensures that everybody’s individual learning style is catered for at some point. Staff are friendly and fun and have a lot of knowledge and experience.”Undergraduate, HCES, NSS 2008

School AS BE CEIS Design HCES Law NBS PSS SASS

2007 % Agree 74 70 71 77 84 82 74 76 82

2008 % Agree 76 68 71 69 84 79 58 77 80

Table 9

Table 9: Programme Survey Results for the years 2007-08 and 2008-09 for ‘Teaching on my Programme’. Questions are the same asked in the NSS questions shown in Table 8.

7.5FacilitiesAccess to facilities for all students has generally been improved over the

past few years, and most students were aware of big changes that had been

made in their best interests. For example, many students expressed their

satisfaction at the decision to have the City Library open 24 hours per day,

and said that this move has drastically improved their student experience

from their fi rst year, as they now have increased fl exibility to complete work

when they wish. The extension of the Library’s opening hours was policy

partially driven by the University, and involved consultation with senior

University committees, as well as the Students’ Union. The Students’ Union

commends the University on the introduction of this policy, and believes

that its students have benefi ted greatly as a result of it.

“Course is well organised and well run by extremely well informed, knowledgeable and approachable staff. Having 24-hour access to IT facilities running the required software for various modules is great.”Undergraduate, CEIS, NSS 2008

Students generally felt that since they had started at Northumbria, the

number of students per course has steadily increased, whilst the number

of facilities available has remained roughly the same. Whether or not this

portrayal is representative of a privileged fi rst few years for some students

at the University, or shows a decline in the availability of learning resources,

or is symptomatic of a lack of communication of availability of resources for

students is unclear, but what is essentially the same problem has surfaced

in various guises, namely that of: lecture theatres being overcrowded,

overcrowding of IT and Library facilities (private study areas), and too few

copies of texts available to students. These issues were raised in a majority

of the focus groups held and are also evident from the qualitative data in

the National Student Survey. Whilst the Students’ Union recognises that

improvements have been made, and particularly on courses that offer

research rooms to students in their fi nal year, the majority of students still

recognise and identify these as issues, and the University should monitor

their provision of core resources to students carefully. Also, with the

University switching in a lot of cases from hard- to soft-copies of texts, it

is possible that the students’ satisfaction with the availability of ‘core texts’

will be improved, as there will be less problems with limited access to

them if they are all available online. Nevertheless, it still remains an area of

interest for the Students’ Union.

It is of note that the University was named the “UK’s most IT-enabled

Organisation” at the Computing Awards for Excellence 2006, and

continues to implement a variety of innovative practices. For example,

there is a system by which students can identify where free computers are

anywhere in the University using the MyNorthumbria portal, which, while

not eliminating problems with access to facilities, certainly does a lot to

reduce the effects of these limitations. There are almost 3,500 computer

workstations available to students at the time of writing, a 40% increase

from 2007/08 when the University had 2,500 workstations. In 2006/07

the University had a ratio of 8.3:1 in terms of the number of workstations

per student, which at the time was reportedly similar to other institutions

of Northumbria’s size (following a survey from Universities and Colleges

Information Systems Association). There is no subsequent data available.

Also worthy of note, in relation to access to facilities is the fact that the

library compares favourably with those of other institutions. It is ranked

13th in the NSS rankings and has a 95% satisfaction rate according to

their annual survey.

Most students reported that they had encountered problems when using

NORA, the online database of e-journals and websites. Many students

said that they gave up trying to use the service and simply used ‘Google

Scholar’ or other similar services because NORA was too diffi cult for them

to use. Students who had attended help sessions (from the focus groups,

almost exclusively postgraduate students) reported that they found NORA

easy to use afterwards, and lauded it as an invaluable resource in their

studies, but most reported that they only became familiar with how to use

NORA in their fi nal year. It is clear to the Students’ Union that support for

usage of NORA is available, and this problem could be easily resolved were

the University to advertise NORA help sessions better, and to perhaps make

them more accessible to students, or to perhaps make them compulsory or

include as an actual module for research-intensive degrees.

“I really struggled with NORA and found the e-journals awful until I went on a session to help with it, and now I find it quite easy to use.”Undergraduate, Open Focus Group, 8th May 2009

It should be noted that the International Information Industry Awards 2006

nominated Northumbria University Library and Learning Services’ NORA

service, in the category of ‘Best Information / Knowledge Team Awards’.


All Schools in the University monitor students’ attendance and in 2008

two schools piloted ToKairo, an attendance management system. Registers

will be used across the University in 2009-10, but Schools will decide

which seminars and lectures are specifi cally monitored. Students who

have experienced this attendance register largely had issues with it,

predominantly because it, in some way, forced students who perhaps

did not wish to attend particular lectures to be there. This ‘compulsory’

attendance led to some students exhibiting disruptive behaviour which is

not always well-controlled and, in some cases, ignored, leading to a poorer

learning atmosphere for all students in the lecture. It is understood that

attendance registers will be used across the University in the coming year,

due to attendance monitoring being particularly relevant to International

Students and new legislation regarding visas. There were comments made

about some lecturers ‘ignoring’ disruptions and continuing with the lecture

in spite of it, to the detriment of the rest of the class, who were unable to

give their full attention to the academic material. This issue is therefore

two-fold: Firstly, students generally expressed their concern at the ‘school’

atmosphere that an attendance register created, and felt that it was their

right to choose which lectures they attend given that they pay for the

service. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, given that attendance

registers are to be compulsory, students are still reporting problems with

regards to disruptive behaviour.

The Students’ Union and, as a corollary, the School Reps, were involved

in the creation of the University’s ‘Guidelines on Disruptive Behaviour’ and

it appears that these guidelines are either not effective in all cases or are

currently not utilised across Schools. The Students’ Union recommends

that some research is conducted into disruptive behaviour in lectures in the

new year, particularly where attendance registers are compulsory, in order

to determine if this will continue to be an issue in 2009/2010. A copy of the

‘Guidelines on Disruptive Behaviour’ is available in Appendix D.

Northumbria students have high expectations in the use of modern

communication technologies and focus groups showed that these

expectations are met. A large majority of students wish for lecture notes to

be placed on Blackboard before lectures and, in most Schools, students

report that lecturers are more than happy to do so. Lecturers and tutors alike

reportedly e-mail students regularly, and this constant communication

helps to foster a good relationship between students and staff. Students

noted that they would prefer for a standardised communication format

across departments or staff, so that either Blackboard is the preferred

method of communication, for example, or that e-mail is, rather than

different staff using a variety of techniques. That said, it is a way of

improving what is already a good system, and not a huge problem in itself.

Levels of English Language Profi ciency“At times I’ve found it hard to work with students who speak English as a second language, particularly on group assessments.”School Rep, School Rep Focus Group, 13th May 2009

Numerous students have had issues with group assignments in the

University, and it seems that a large number of these issues have arisen

due to communication problems between UK and International Students,

an issue raised in both the focus groups and in Course Rep forums.

Both UK and International Students have questioned the English language

requirements of Northumbria University, and many students have felt that

either students who are below the required standard are being admitted or

the standard is not high enough. Clearly, the former suggests that current

testing methods are inaccurate, while the latter suggests that they are

accurate, but should be made more diffi cult. Several student representatives

have suggested that International Students are misled by agencies

promoting Northumbria around the world about the standard of English

required to succeed, and this is an issue that the University should monitor

carefully.

It has been further suggested by some International Students that these

agencies may advise students to ‘apply fi rst, and worry about their quality

of English later’. There is no information available on the University’s

relationships with international agencies, but this information may be

useful in seeing if it is possible to clarify exactly how Northumbria

University is marketed to International Students, especially in terms of

English requirements. It is likely that there are some agencies who market

Northumbria University without working in partnership with it, and it seems

that, while the University is unable to deal with this issue specifi cally,

it could still review its admissions process for these students once

they have actually applied. It is clear that inviting students to study at

Northumbria who do not have a suffi ciently functional grasp of written

or spoken English creates problems for the University, and both UK and

International Students.

7.5 Cont.7.6

7.7International StudentsIt was suggested in the focus groups that International Students struggled to

grasp University policies, particularly on issues such as plagiarism.

“The University tends to place more emphasis on the [referencing] style in which information is presented, rather than the technical aspects and content of students’ work.”International student, Open Focus Group, 21st May 2009

The Advice and Representation Centre provides free advice to students

on a broad range of academic and welfare issues. Many cases involve

allegations of academic misconduct, where students have been accused

of plagiarism, collusion, and so on. International Students make up a large

proportion of the students who seek advice on academic misconduct from

the Centre, and there seems to broad consensus amongst students’ unions

that this is a fairly common phenomenon. International Students in focus

groups offered the opinion that the University appears to overlook the

content of students’ work order to focus on the referencing style, and this

comment is potentially quite revealing.

It is possible that International Students arrive in the UK with a different set

of cultural norms and values and may, in good faith, reproduce something

without adequate acknowledgement. It is no doubt the responsibility of

students unfamiliar with the referencing systems that Northumbria uses to

familiarise themselves with them, but while it remains an issue, it seems

that more could be done to aid them in this familiarisation process. It is an

area that the Students’ Union is interested in doing further research on, and

an area where the University may wish to review current practices. Perhaps

all lecturers in students’ fi rst years could contextualise what plagiarism is

in their modules and provide examples, or perhaps the students’ increasing

use of TurnItIn software will provide students with a reason to seek their

lecturer’s advice on potential plagiarism that appears in their work.

In terms of current support, International Students have generally reported

that the International Offi ce has been useful in helping with specifi c issues

that they have encountered during their time at Northumbria. It seems

that in circumstances where students are struggling with their course,

and particularly in terms of written and spoken English, that the University

could do more to support the students, as they would have passed the

University’s requirements, but this threshold is ‘one-way’ and may not

accurately refl ect what the level of English will be like on the course for

that particular student. Someone could, for example, pass an English exam

before they take a Business module, but it does not necessarily mean that

they are equipped to deal with the same fl ow of information, and all of the

esoteric concepts and terminology within that module. The Students’ Union

has a legitimate interest in the well-being of potential students attending the

English Language Summer School that the University runs and would be

interested to have sight of data related to success rates of the University and

subsequent admissions to the University.

The University has identifi ed the need to ‘ensure that students for whom

English is a second language are fully capable of learning through the

medium of English from an early stage in their programme’ in their 2006

CPA and have subsequently instated standard minimum IELTS scores for

entry to undergraduate and postgraduate programmes, which can only

be lowered with ULT approval. A ULT English Language Task Group has

recommended that IELTS scores of admitted students are recorded on

the SITS system to allow monitoring of student performance, and it is

understood that one year’s data has now been collected. The Students’

Union is interested to know the what analysis of the data has revealed,

and if there is any correspondence between IELTS scores and performance,

as these data are likely to be signifi cantly important in any review of the

current admissions process for students who speak English as a second

language. There is little doubt that this level of data monitoring by the

English Language Task Group will provide interesting results, and the

Students’ Union notes that this issue must be highly-regarded by the

University to warrant this level of investigation, and this development

is promising.

7.8


7.9Areas of ‘Best Practice’ in SupportConsultation with students through focus groups has revealed that most

students, regardless of country of origin, mode of study, or age, do not

commit Northumbria University’s assessment regulations, such as those

contained in ARNA (Assessment Regulations for Northumbria Awards) or in

the Student Handbook, to memory, or even necessarily acknowledge what

they are when they arrive at University. Students have generally reported

a fl ood of information at the beginning of each academic year, but, as

might be expected, this information can be left to one side when there

are seemingly more important issues to focus on (such as information on

assignments, which is immediately relevant). From a student perspective,

this approach is not altogether impractical, and it is rational behaviour to

place less focus on something which is statistically less likely to happen

(having to appeal a grade, for example), whilst placing more emphasis on

something which is certain (having to do an assignment, for example).

That said, certain Schools within the University have made access to

support mechanisms a lot simpler. The Students’ Union is aware of at

least two Schools, the School of Computing, Engineering, and Information

Sciences and the School of Applied Sciences that do, or will in the new

academic year, provide a ‘virtual reception’ area through the e-Learning

Portal, where students can access ‘Frequently Asked Questions’ and have

the opportunity to ask anything. Further to these virtual reception areas,

two different Schools have provided students with a one-stop shop for

any problems that they may be facing within the School. These types of

services are invaluable to students, as they provide a fi rst point of contact

for students who are unsure of who to contact regarding their particular

issue. The proprietors of these services have also provided pointers to the

Students’ Union, and have been a useful resource for the Students’ Union

in situations where the problems students have faced have been School-

specifi c and some clarifi cation on students’ available options is required.

The Students’ Union believes that an offi ce that offers a specifi c point

of contact to students for a range of enquiries creates a vital link in the

communication chain between students and staff. If, for example, a student

in Newcastle Business School is having a personal issue that is affecting

their work and needs to complete a PEC form, or needs to know what

options are available to them, they are able to approach this service and

resolve the issue through a form of intermediary. It seems that this type of

service is able to provide substantial support to students, and particularly

when other University staff are particularly busy. Students who have used

this service in the Schools have generally been very satisfi ed with it, and

it is something the Students’ Union would encourage other Schools to

consider, given the benefi ts to both students and staff.

PGR StudentsPGR students were generally positive about their research experience, but

also highlighted some areas for improvement. Students were satisfi ed with

their training and opportunities for development in terms of courses and

training programmes, and felt that tutor guidance was excellent, but some

students felt that there could be more opportunities for group learning. The

quality of teaching and supervision in the PGR Student Written Submission

for the Periodic Review, was described as ‘generally high’, while they

experienced similar problems to the undergraduates in terms of ‘training

and communication between supervisors would be useful to spread good

practice among supervisors’. Students generally felt that the Graduate

School was excellent in terms of the information and support it provides,

but that the School itself could be better advertised. The comments in

the PGR Periodic Review reveal that students generally felt that training

modules offered to PGR students were too generic and not very useful, and

were described as ‘tick box’ exercises. It was mentioned that students were

not encouraged by their supervisors to take these modules.

The PRES results show that, as with other issues surveyed by PRES, and

as noted in the focus groups, PGR students are generally satisfi ed with

the supervision they are given. Notable improvements have been made in

terms of guidance for the literature search, and availability of lecturers and

guidance in topic selection and refi nement has been improved as well, at

face value. It is clear from Table 10, and from other sections from PRES

highlighted in this report that the dip in satisfaction at the undergraduate

level, shown through the NSS, has not extended to PGR students’

satisfaction with their course, with consistently high mean scores shown.

In terms of support, PGR students are allocated an independent member

of staff who is available to approach about issues that they are facing,

but there was “wide variance in Schools in whether or not discussion

was encouraged about problems with aspects of the School supervisors”

according to the Periodic Review. Students felt that the issues that they

raised would not remain confi dential and that there should be more

‘political transparency’ so that students could be assured that their

discussions were not shared with other members of staff.

PGR students were generally satisfi ed with the feedback they were given,

and noted in the Periodic Review that feedback on their MPP (Mid-Point

Progression) can be received within a day.

In terms of personal development, the Periodic Review shows that a few

students felt that ‘personal development planning was not tailored enough to

the needs of research students, and that some supervisors were only applying

it because they were required to’, while one student found it useful.

Generally, the suggested improvements concerned facilities and access.

Many students felt that while their core facilities were fi t for purpose, they

would not necessarily describe them as ‘good’. A lot of students were provided

with ‘hot desks’ which led to a lot of students working from home, but in

Schools where students are provided with their own desk and computer,

facilities were described as ‘very good’. Other areas for improvement were

access to core texts and major journals, both of which students felt there was

a high demand for and a low supply. Some students felt that facilities were

improving and that facilities have improved over the years.

Q PRES Section 1: Supervision 2008 2009

1a My supervisor/s have the skills and subject knowledge to adequately support my research 4.3 4.3

1b My supervisor/s make a real effort to understand any difficulties I face 4.2 4.2

1c I have been given good guidance in topic selection and refinement by my supervisor/s 4 4.2

1d I have received good guidance in my literature search from my supervisor/s 3.7 4.0

1e My supervisor/s provide helpful feedback on my progress 4.1 4.2

1f My supervisor/s are available when I need them 4.0 4.2

Supervision summary (average) 4.1 4.2

Table 10

Table 10: PRES 2009 Results for ‘Supervision’ category


7.10

Section:8

Summary of Learningand Research ExperienceThe Students’ Union believes that the University has made substantial

improvements in terms of students’ learning and research experiences and

it is our view that the NSS is not sensitive to these changes.

The Students’ Union prides the University on a track record of being

proactive and progressing agendas that positively impact the student

experience at Northumbria. It is clear, however, that there are still

inconsistencies in responses at a School-level and, despite the University’s

development of a culture of sharing ‘best practice’ through initiatives such

as conferences and Learning and Teaching Awards, there is still a need

for clear, minimum standards to be set. The Students’ Union believes that

communication is an area for development for the University, and that each

School should have a clear communication plan, linking to a University-

wide communication strategy, in order to tackle some of the issues that

students have outlined. The Students’ Union is aware of the positive

changes that the University has made, but it is of vital importance that these

changes are communicated to students. In some cases, Schools should be

more proactive in their communication with students, particularly in areas

that scored poorly on the NSS, such as feedback and organisation.

If students are aware of exactly what University policy is in these

areas and the University clarifi es any areas where there are currently

misunderstandings, it is believed that student satisfaction will increase.

Providing details to students, for example, of changes on a course that have

been made as a result of the previous year’s Programme Survey,

for example, may encourage the same students’ participation in their own

Programme Survey, which further benefi ts the University. ‘Closing the

feedback loop’ is the crucial and underdeveloped link in the University’s

current strategy, and it is believed that a fi rm commitment to this practice

combined with additional positive change will drastically impact students’

academic experience.

Outside Schools, what other opportunities for support are there?

IntroductionIn general, students were confi dent that there are ample opportunities for

support within current University structures. Most students were aware of

Student Services and the Chaplaincy as a mechanism for support, and

those students who had used the service were generally very happy with

their experience. In terms of support on academic issues, such as the

appeals process, or support through academic misconduct allegations,

those students who had been in these situations were generally happy with

the advice that their tutors or Programme Leaders had given them within

schools, which was described as fair and generally supportive of students.

“Most of the staff are very friendly and helpful. I know I can approach them if I get stuck and that they would be able to guide me in the right direction.”Undergraduate, NBS, NSS 2008

Academic MisconductIt is of note that most staff, and particularly in letters detailing allegations

of academic misconduct, most Schools in the University provide a

recommendation to seek advice at the Students’ Union. The referral of

students has been useful for fostering the good relationship between the

University and Students’ Union, as previously referred to [Section 5].

The Students’ Union was mentioned by the majority of students as a place

where they could go for support on academic issues, and the students that

do seek advice are generally satisfi ed with the quality of support given, both

by University staff and the Students’ Union. However, these are the students

who are seen, or the students who have reported problems in focus groups,

who are assumed to be a minority, and it is possible that there are students

who are not referred to the Advice service, or who do not understand some

aspects of it and feel that there are no opportunities for support.

While obviously hypothetical, the Students’ Union could more accurately

report on this information if provided access to the number of informal

meetings that result from allegations of academic misconduct. The

University currently monitors ‘instances of academic misconduct’,

produces a report for ULT and gathers data on cases established by both

the initial procedure and by formal panel. These data could be reviewed in

terms of their potential for identifi cation of trends within certain groups in

the University, which would allow for further investigation into these trends,

with the intention of working with the University to enhance academic

misconduct education for specifi c groups of students through targeted

campaigns.

8.18.2


Finance“I’ve tried to contact Finance but can only do so through 4242... I’m not comfortable providing my financial details to the IT Helpline.”PGR Student, PGR Focus Group

It is understood by the Students’ Union that the Finance Offi ce can no

longer be directly contacted, and that students are required to use 4242

(the IT Helpline) before they are able to approach the Finance Offi ce, where

the Helpline is generally reported to be an unnecessary and often unhelpful

step by students. There is also reported to be a lack of any clear division

of responsibility between Schools and the Finance Offi ce in terms of who

is specifi cally responsible for particular issues, and there is a perception

amongst many students that students can often be referred from IT Helpline

to Finance to their School and back again.

There is further concern that fi nancial information is not available to

students in an accessible format, and it is often diffi cult for students

to understand charges. It is important to note that the University has

recognised the need for development in this area, identifying opportunities

to improve the accessibility of information through MyNorthumbria for

example. It should also be noted that the Finance Department has sought

active student representation in this process, and has invited a Sabbatical

Offi cer to attend working group meetings. However, this service remains

a signifi cant concern for students and the Students’ Union and one which

is problematic to the University’s desire to provide an all round excellent

student experience.

PGR StudentsPGR students have generally been positive about the opportunities for

support. Student Services, the Students’ Union, IT Services, and the Library

have all been highlighted as areas where help has been available. These

relationships are expanded upon under the ‘Student Voice’ section. The

Finance Offi ce was described as problematic, by both undergraduate and

PGR students have raised issues numerous times regarding these in PGR

and School Rep Forums. The PGR students generally felt that this service is

not particularly user-friendly, and in some situations their student privileges

had been mistakenly revoked, or that there were issues with their fi nances

not being correctly managed.

8.38.4

8.5 Summary of Other Opportunities for SupportStudents generally feel that there is support available to them outside their

Schools of study, and that the University provides them with access to a

range of services designed to improve their student experience.

The Students’ Union recognises the high quality of the holistic support that

is available for students studying at Northumbria and genuinely believes

that this contributes to an excellent overall student experience. Whilst there

is a clear need for improvement in some areas, the majority of service

departments within the institution provide an excellent, student-focused

service which is highly valued by students.

Section:9Do students feel as though they have a voice, and is it listened to?

IntroductionMost students in the focus groups felt that in their fi rst year they weren’t sure if

students at Northumbria had a voice – if so, it was not immediately evident to

them. Students in their following years were more confi dent that students had

a variety of ways to express their opinions on the student experience, although

opinion was divided on whether or not it was listened to.

This question could possibly have led to a disproportionate representation of

satisfaction with the ‘student voice’ given that the majority of focus groups were

held in the presence of elected student representatives, who on one hand are

more likely to know exactly what is done with the student voice, but who are

also more familiar with how student opinions are collected.

RepresentationWhilst it is clearly not the subject of the Student Written Submission, it should

be noted that the vast majority of students mentioned Northumbria Students’

Union as a facilitator of the student voice. It is of note because the University

has worked closely with the Students’ Union to ensure that Northumbria has an

excellent representation system, and has supported the representative structure

at the highest possible level. Nearly every programme in the University has a

Course Rep(s) who is invited to attend committees such as the Staff-Student

Liaison Committee, in order to provide the ‘student voice’ which at this

level is the voice of their peers. The accepted norm for the appointment of

Course Reps is through a peer election process but there should be greater

consistency in the application of this practice, as it is understood that some

Course Reps are still merely appointed by lecturers. The Students’ Union

provides training for the Course Reps in order to improve their communication

skills and diversity awareness training in order to improve their accessibility to

the full range of Northumbria’s students, and therefore their ability to engage

their peers, and Schools are taking an increasingly active role in providing time

for students to attend this training, which is invaluable to the Students’ Union.

Some Schools have also expressed interest in facilitating Course Rep training

themselves, and one School in particular, the School of Arts and Social

Sciences, made an attempt to provide their Course Reps with assertiveness

training, which was unfortunately poorly attended. With the sheer number

of students enrolled at Northumbria, the representative structure currently in

place is one of the most useful tools the University has to receive regular and

consistent feedback throughout the year.

The University has worked collaboratively with the Students’ Union to ensure

that Northumbria has one of the best representation systems in the country.

The system is nationally recognised, and Reps from Northumbria have won

the National Union of Students (NUS) ‘Course Rep of the Year Award’ in the

two years of its existence; a testament to the system that the University has

funded and supported, both fi nancially through the block grant and through

some separate School Rep funding, and in terms of assistance and advice they

have provided on the structure of the system. It should also be noted that, on

the whole, staff have been hugely supportive of the representation system, and

the Students’ Union has found it easy to engage the senior staff in all Schools

in order to ensure that Reps are recruited. There are still some Schools that

could do more to facilitate this process, however, and the Students’ Union will

attempt to improve these relationships in 2010.

The University has also funded the annual Course Rep Conference since its

inception in 2007, an event that is now recognised as Best Practice by NUS,

and has been copied across the country. The day is in essence a training day

for Course Reps, but also hosts sessions by numerous University services in

order to improve Course Reps’ understanding of University systems.

Students who felt as though the student voice did not really exist generally

felt that Course Reps were not effective at soliciting their peers’ opinions, and

sometimes represented themselves rather than their cohort. This feeling was

echoed by School Reps, who also suggested that it could simply be a case

of Course Reps not ‘closing the feedback loop’ and reporting back on issues

that have been raised. Analysis of the Programme Leader Survey 2008 showed

that Course Reps who were trained were generally considered by staff to be

more effective than their untrained counterparts. These Course Reps provide

an often-crucial link between students and staff, particularly on programmes

that host large numbers of students. The training helps students to make

themselves more approachable, which is of great importance, particularly when

representing a demographically-varied cohort.

9.19.2


9.3

9.4Other Methods of Gathering the Student VoiceStudents also mentioned module and programme surveys, including the

NSS, which they complete at the end of a module or at the end of the year,

respectively. Whilst students reported that, in general, they could not see any

results in their fi rst years of study, it seems that progress is being made on

this front. It might be useful for the University lecturers to provide a ‘You Said

We Did’ session at the start of the year to show what feedback has been taken

on-board, although, this would have possible negative repercussions.

Lecturers probably do not wish to pre-empt any student opinions.

It is worth mentioning once again that the Students’ Union appreciated the

opportunity to be involved in the Periodic Review process, and particularly in

the role of canvassing student opinion for the purpose of drafting a Student

Written Submission to this process. Prior to 2008 there was no Students’

Union involvement in the Periodic Review, and commends the University’s

decision to invite the Students’ Union to play a key role in the process, and to

provide resources to the Students’ Union to allow its involvement.

It should be noted that throughout the year academic staff make requests to

the Students’ Union for student representation on various committees and

research groups. For example, a student was invited to sit on the Teaching

Innovations Committee this year, and was involved in judging the Applauding

and Promoting Teaching Awards (the student-nominated version of which

was judged by School Reps). There are also pockets of excellent practice

within the University which go beyond committee attendance, for example

within SASS all appointment panels for academic staff contain student

representation, something which the Students’ Union believes should be

replicated throughout the University.

In 2007 Sabbatical Offi cers at the Students’ Union highlighted that there

was a need for a set of standards for both students and staff to adhere to,

particularly with the increase in fees. The Students’ Union was heavily

involved in the drafting of this document, and issued a questionnaire to

students to explore what the document should contain. The University

embraced this opportunity to clarify expectations, both in terms of what

students should expect from the University, and in terms of what the

University can expect from students. Tens of thousands of these ‘Student

Learning Values’ have been issued to students. This document is an

excellent example of the University’s commitment to ensuring that students

have direct input into their learning experience whilst at Northumbria.

PGR StudentsNorthumbria University is one of the only universities in the country that

boasts a PGR-specifi c representation system, which ensures that PGR Reps

have representation at the highest level of the PGR-specifi c committees in the

University. The PGR representation system is funded by the Graduate School

and the Reps are trained and mentored by the Students’ Union. The Graduate

School is also a source of information for the Reps, and a Graduate School

representative attends most PGR Rep forums and provides useful information

to Reps in terms of current University policy, committees that various issues

should be referred to, and the best way to present these issues.

Most PGR students reported that they feel that they have a voice, and an outlet

through which to speak, but that very little is done when issues are raised,

while some felt that they do not have a voice, or that they cannot tell if they

do or not. There was mixed feeling in the Periodic Review of PGR provision,

which highlighted that that Rep system worked differently in different Schools,

with some Schools having quite an informal system of meeting with Reps,

and other students who did not know who their Rep was.

There appears to be some feeling that the issues either take too long to be

resolved, or that it is not raised at committees where results can be achieved.

Students appear to use two main channels to voice their concerns: PGR

Reps and Principal Supervisors. In some Schools, the relationship with

Principal Supervisors appears to be much better, with students essentially

just mentioning something that is unsatisfactory and it is resolved, whereas

in other Schools issues need to be chased through to an eventual resolution,

often using the formal structure of the PGR Reps.

In 2008 it became clear through the PGR Reps that PGR students were

dissatisfi ed with their library and IT provision, with roughly the same provision

as undergraduates in terms of their student accounts/network space, e-mail

inbox size, and inadequate loan privileges from the library. This issue was

raised with Directors of IT Services and Library and Learning Services and

they were allocated greater network space, and their loan privileges were

expanded, both of which were much better suited to their needs. This

practice is exemplary in terms of students having raised an issue, which is

acknowledged by the University and followed through to resolution, and then

fed back to students to ‘close the feedback loop’ so that the University might

be applauded for their action.

It seems that the largest problem that PGR students face is with the University

and PGR Reps feeding back issues that have been dealt with, and perhaps

improving lines of communication between members of staff, students, and

their representatives. If students have a voice and are able to raise issues

which are then resolved, they may feel as though nothing has been done,

even if the issue has been resolved.

It is of note that while there are still students who do not believe that they

have a voice at University, there was still relatively poor attendance at the PGR

Periodic Review for the Student Written Submission, and it is unclear whether

this poor attendance is a symptom of their feeling that students do not have

a voice (that is, students do not attend because they think no action will be

taken as a result of their feedback) or whether they are not familiar with the

process and what implications it could have on their student experience. This

lack of clarity about students’ perceptions of some of the formal structures for

feedback that the University has in place extends to undergraduate students as

well, and is a point of interest for future research.

Summary of Student VoiceThe Students’ Union feels that, on the whole, students have a voice and it

is listened to. The University has made substantial improvements in the

time period since the last QAA audit in terms of establishing processes and

formal structures for the student voice to be heard, and the Students’ Union

congratulates the University on its achievements in this area. It seems that the

majority of students who feel as though they do not have a voice may face the

issue of either not having their issues acknowledged or not having their issues

followed up with them, in terms of the University ‘closing the feedback loop’.

It may also improve student satisfaction with the University’s structures for

hearing the student voice to ensure that stricter guidelines are

in place in terms of selection of Course Reps, to ensure that they are fairly and

democratically-elected where possible, as opposed to hand-picked.

Once again, the Students’ Union notes that there is still one consistent

factor in the students’ feedback, which is communication. Opportunities for

feedback should be better communicated to students, with emphasis on

communicating what structures currently exist, and more of a ‘You Said We

Did’ approach in terms of ‘closing the feedback loop’ and letting students

know what the University has done following students’ feedback.


Does Northumbria live up to students’ expectations?

IntroductionAlmost all undergraduate students agreed that Northumbria had lived up

to their expectations. When asked if they would recommend Northumbria

to a friend, virtually everyone in focus groups confi rmed that they would

recommend the University to a friend, but some stipulated that they would not

recommend their particular course, and it seems, therefore, that Northumbria

has not lived up to every student’s expectations. It should be noted that in

these cases students would (hypothetically) recommend Northumbria to their

friends, but due to the general atmosphere of the University and the city rather

than because of their academic interests.

Such a recommendation is, one on hand, encouraging, in that it supports

the overall student experience that the University helps to provide, but is

disappointing when considering that most students’ primary objective for

attending a university is probably to obtain a degree.

“Everything has been amazing... Exactly as portrayed!.”Course Rep, Psychology and Sports Sciences, Focus Group 27th May 2009

Accuracy of InformationThe information available on the website and in the prospectus appears to be

broadly accurate according to students who read it, but most students agreed

that it was by no means comprehensive, and it was suggested by numerous

students that often module descriptors could be ambiguous or misleading.

Students generally felt that modules could either be more accurately named,

as opposed to having catchy-but-ambiguous titles, or material covered by

them could be further expanded upon in the descriptions, so as to give a true

idea of what students would study in the module.

Section:1010.1

10.210.3 Academic Expectations

The NSS data from 2008 suggest that in some Schools, in some areas,

students’ expectations are not being met (for example in Table 6: Law,

Applied Sciences, and Design in relation to ‘Assessment and Feedback’).

Whilst it is possible that these low scores result from a few disgruntled

students exclusively completing the survey in that School, it still warrants

further investigation from the University.

Another point of interest in the 2008 data is that, EU students expressed

far greater satisfaction with their personal development at Northumbria,

particularly in terms of their ‘course helping to present [themselves] with

confi dence’. The Students’ Union is unable to pinpoint what specifi cally

caused this signifi cant increase in EU students’ satisfaction, but something

has clearly brought the University more in-line with EU students’ expectations,

and if this increase is attributable to a particular initiative it should defi nitely

be further examined.

10.4

In general, PGR students felt that their expectations have been met, but none

reported that it had exceeded their expectations. Improvements could be

made in terms of equipment provided and facilities available for research, and

some students felt as though PGR students did not have much standing in the

University due to the sometimes sub-optimal facilities that they are provided,

which affect the overall PGR student experience.

PGR Students differ from undergraduate students in that they generally have

an option to teach. The issue of PGR teaching was raised in numerous PGR

Rep Forums and subsequently at University-level committees due to the

fact that students on some programmes do not have an option to teach, and

PGR students felt that it might be useful to have a university-wide policy

on teaching allocation to PGR students. The point was also made that

international PGR students are required to meet the standards of their own

countries when they return with a degree from an English university and that

teaching experience may be a requirement.

Interestingly, it has been highlighted in the Periodic Review that when

teaching work is added to students’ research work, the workload can become

‘too high’ for some students, while others clearly feel that they are not able

to do enough teaching because of limited places available. Because of this

limited number of places, it was also highlighted in the Periodic Review that

the allocation of teaching work should perhaps be regulated.

The PRES results shown in Table 11 broadly confi rm what the focus groups

and Periodic Review stated – students are generally satisfi ed that their courses

have met their expectations. Clearly, there have been improvements in every

area, particularly in terms of ‘opportunities to develop transferable/research

skills’, and in terms of ‘supervisory support and guidance’. These results

are encouraging, and evidence the trend of continual improvement that the

Students’ Union identifi ed from PGR students in the PGR Focus Group.

The area for greatest improvement appears to be improving the Research

Environment for PGR students, though it is unclear to the Students’ Union

how this environment would be improved at the time of writing.

PRES Section 12: Expectations Met 2008 2009

Supervisory support and guidance 1.2 1.5

Opportunities to develop a range of research skills 0.8 1.1

Opportunities to develop a range of transferable skills 0.6 0.9

Access to appropriate facilities 0.7 0.9

The research environment 0.5 0.6

Provision of guidance on institutional standards and expectations for your research degree programme 0.7 0.8

Overall experience of my research programme 1.0 1.2

PGR Students

Table 11

Table 11: PRES Results showing ‘Expectations’. Note that these results are on a scale of -3 to +3 where -3 is ‘much more negative than expected’, 0 is ‘expectations met’, and +3 is ‘much more positive than expected’.

Summary of Student ExpectationsOn the whole, students’ expectations are met, and their experience at

Northumbria University is an excellent one. Those students who had

reviewed information provided to them by the University felt that it was largely

accurate, with exceptions on some courses where some aspects of students’

expectations are not being met. The vast majority of students consulted in

focus groups would hypothetically recommend Northumbria to a friend, and

this result is encouraging.


Section:12

ConclusionsStudents are broadly very satisfi ed with their experience at Northumbria

University. The four areas of particular interest to the QAA are the University’s

expectations of success for students, students’ academic experience, the

student voice, and how Northumbria has lived up to student expectations.

Northumbria University is committed to improving the student experience,

and there have been some encouraging signs to suggest that this

commitment is manifested in practical and innovative initiatives, such

as being one of the fi rst universities to have a 24-hour Library, or PGR

Representatives, or student representation on Periodic Review panels.

These initiatives, while seemingly small, represent some of the most obvious

and practical solutions to issues that students have raised in the past, and it is

of the utmost importance that the University continues to seek out improved

methods to communicate the positive changes it has sought to implement

for students.

It is felt that the University, far from seeking ‘quick fi xes’ to problems, has

developed structurally in order to refl ect a period where student feedback is

more important than ever before, and again, it is perhaps worth the University

emphasising to students the opportunities that are available to them to

suggest further improvements to their experience. It is also be worth reviewing

current opportunities for students to voice their opinions and asking whether

or not they are fi t for purpose or whether students fi nd the structure of these

opportunities unnecessarily bureaucratic.

The Students’ Union believes that there are three key areas for improvement

within the University. These areas for improvement are what the Students’

Union believes to be the most widely and deeply felt issues amongst

students, and present a real opportunity for the University to improve the

student experience as a whole.

The fi rst and most important area for improvement is University

communication, both with students and between Schools. This broad topic

encompasses areas such as making students aware of key changes that

are made at a Course, School, or University level, feeding back on issues

that have been raised, ensuring that students have a real understanding of

what success at Northumbria requires, and generally ensuring that students

are informed about issues pertaining to their student experience. In terms

of communication between Schools, the Students’ Union believes that all

Schools would benefi t as a result of increased sharing of ‘best practice’, and

the University could facilitate this sharing by increasingly identifying areas

of excellent practice within Schools. It seems that further to this idea, there

should be minimum standards on some issues, such as feedback, use of

the e-Learning Portal, or course information delivery, that encourage greater

consistency of application across modules.

For example, a set University policy on how a lecturer communicates to

their class that they will be late in their arrival can only benefi t both students

and lecturers, and perhaps the piloting of new projects, such as the texting

service, will reveal the most effective methods of achieving this outcome.

The second area of particular interest to the Students’ Union is the English

language profi ciency levels of students who speak English as a second

language. Students have consistently reported issues arising from low

levels of English language profi ciency, and there should either be greater

support for students who speak English as a second language or a more

effective admissions policy in terms of assessing students’ level of

profi ciency.

Finally, and broadly related to communication, the University should

consider opportunities for accessing the student voice. Many of the

discussions of student satisfaction in this document are centred on aspects

of University practice that it is likely students simply do not understand,

or are unaware of. If the University is able to more effectively promote the

benefi ts of, for example, completing the next Programme Survey, and is

able to provide evidence at a School-level of what changes can be made,

and shows that the University is, as the Students’ Union believes it is,

committed to listening to students’ feedback, then it is likely that student

satisfaction

will increase. Students may be unaware of the University’s achievements,

but that does not mean that they do not exist.

That said, there are some clear opportunities for making improvements

in these areas, and those opportunities are refl ected in recommendations

made by the Students’ Union. The University’s record of improvements

since the last QAA audit is impressive, and the recommendations are

made with confi dence in the University’s ability to produce practical

solutions to issues highlighted in this report, and in the hope that these

recommendations can be updated and implemented through continued

dialogue and partnership with the Students’ Union.

Section:11

RecommendationsThe Students’ Union’s duty of care is towards students’ learning and social well-being.

The recommendations that are made are done so in the interest of students, and therefore in

the interests of the University. Numerous recommendations are made throughout the report

as to how the student experience could be improved on specific issues. The following

recommendations go a step further and are intended for the benefit of the University as a whole.

1 The University produces a Communication Strategy. This strategy would encompass all aspects of issues discussed in this report, and would aim

to improve communication between staff, and between staff and students. It is believed that many of the issues that students face are the result of

sub-optimal communication, and that this lack of communication is, in fact, the cause of much dissatisfaction amongst students. The Strategy

would incorporate minimum standards to be instated consistently across Schools on a range of issues:

a Assessment feedback – Students should be provided with a list of all available opportunities for feedback, and should know when

feedback will be given by. This date could be provided on the assessment brief itself. If this date is to be changed, this change

should be communicated to students.

b Use of technology – Students should have consistent access to lecture slides or notes on Blackboard across the University.

The University has created Blackboard templates in an attempt to make this practice standard, and Schools should seek to enforce

this practice.

c Changes to lecture timetables – In terms of re-scheduling there should be a policy for all staff to follow so that students are not

inconvenienced by changes.

d Induction material – A full review of induction material is conducted by the University by the start of the 2010 academic year,

placing particular emphasis on the material that is currently provided and the timing of its issue. Tied into this would be an

opportunity for students to clarify any aspects of the documentation that are not clear to students for whatever reason, for example,

language, cultural norms. There is an opportunity for the University to develop a best practice aspect of helping students to

acculturate to being a student at Northumbria. At the start of every academic year students should be furnished with a list of

everything that they are provided by the University with a short description of what the documentation is and why or when they

will need it.

e Bunching of assessment – Module guidelines contain details of when assessments will take place so that students are able to plan

their time more effectively. This information could be collected centrally within departments so that ‘clashes’ of assessment dates may

be avoided.

2 Consistency of application of minimum guidelines on feedback is monitored by the University. Schools should adhere to the current University

guidelines of providing feedback to students within 21 working days and must report if this is not met for any reason. Given that it is one of the major

issues highlighted by the NSS 2009 the University could seek to implement some form of feedback monitoring, whether through a section on the

website, or by questionnaire, to identify which departments are not adhering to the University’s guidelines. Guidelines for staff on providing effective

feedback should be re-launched.

Section:12 Cont.


3 The University utilises its research on disruptive behaviour, implements and enforces the guidelines that currently exist to ensure that students

have access to an effective learning environment.

4 The University conducts research into how Northumbria University is marketed to potential International Students, and particularly in terms of

minimum English language requirements, with the aim of highlighting any potential misleading information given by agents. A full review of the

minimum English language requirements of the University and the effi ciency and usefulness of the IELTS qualifi cation should be conducted,

considering the implications of its admissions policy. The Students’ Union would be particularly interested viewing the analysis of the data collected

with regards to performance of students following their IELTS scores when admitted to the University. The University should also review their policy on

providing assistance to students who do struggle with written and spoken English once they are enrolled.

5 The University and Students’ Union work collaboratively to implement a system of recording cases of alleged academic misconduct by the start of the

academic year 2010, with the intention of identifying any trends in these data and, where identifi ed, working proactively to promote methods of

avoiding academic misconduct to groups of students identifi ed. It would also allow the Students’ Union, as the primary provider of support to students

in cases of academic misconduct, to monitor the number of students seeking advice once an allegation of academic misconduct has been made, and

thus improve the Students’ Union provision to students. If particular groups are not seeking advice, then further research could be conducted to fi nd

out why, and the service or promotion of the service could be improved accordingly.

6 Improve the current methods of gathering the student voice. One example would be to improve response rates for Programme Surveys, which are

consistently low. There are clearly Schools, visible in Table 1b, where the Programme Survey has not been adopted as a tool for quality assurance.

The University currently places a lot of emphasis on the NSS, but it is likely that a lot of issues identifi ed by the NSS could be identifi ed earlier by

utilising the Programme Surveys, and perhaps devoting more resources to the completion and analysis of these Surveys. One possibility for

consideration would be to make these compulsory for students to complete at the end of every year.

Appendix:A

Plan for Student Written Submission Focus Groups

Introduction:

This project plan will set out a proposed set of actions and timescales

for the Student Written Submission Focus Groups to be completed.

Aim:To conduct the following by June 1st 2009, in line with the Student Written

Submission Project Plan:

• 4 x 1-hour individual interviews with Sabbatical Offi cers

• 2 x 90-minute focus groups with School Representatives

• 1 x 90-minute focus group with PGR Representatives

• 3 x 60-minute focus groups with Course Representatives

• 1 x 60-minute focus group with Student Councillors

• 1 x 60-minute focus group with Caucus Group Representatives

• 2 x 60-minute open focus groups – available for any student to attend

Methodology:

Students will be asked to attend Focus Groups at specifi c times, depending

on which of the above groups they belong to. Promotion of the focus groups

will be undertaken in April, with a selection of viable media available for

the task. All groups are easily contactable via e-mail and can be reminded

throughout the promotional period of the relevant dates for focus groups

through normal correspondence (Student Council, School Rep Forums,

Representation News, and so on), with the possible exception of the

constituents of the Open Focus Group. This group will be targeted using

any other electronic means the Students’ Union has at its disposal

(through MyNSU, for example).

Wednesday afternoon sports have fi nished and it seems appropriate that as

many focus groups as possible are held on a Wednesday afternoon, when

the majority of students will be free and attendance can be maximised.

With that in mind, the below dates have been proposed for focus groups:

Focus groups will be chaired by the President of the Students’ Union, David Wright,

and minuted by the Advice and Representation Centre Manager, Steven Meyer.

The promotional material sent out will contain details of how to register to

participate in a focus group – e-mailing contact details to Steven Meyer –

and there will be a limited number of places for students (roughly 10 per

group). For the purposes of the groups it will be useful to have a range of

students from across the schools, with a maximum of 2 students per school

per group. There will be fi nancial incentives for students to participate,

currently budgeted at about £10 each per session.

With the current budget, and based on the assumptions that a) there will be 10

people attending every focus group with the exception of caucus groups and

PGR Reps, and b) Sabbatical Offi cers are not offered the same incentives, there

will be roughly £17/head budgeted for fi nancial incentives and refreshments.

Date Day Time Focus Group

5th May Tuesday 11:30 - 12:30 Course Reps (1 of 3)

7th May Thursday 15:00 - 16:30 School Reps (1 of 2)

8th May Friday 13:00 - 14:00 Open [Coach Lane] (1 of 2)

13th May Wednesday 15:00 - 16:30 School Reps (2 of 2)

14th May Thursday 13:00 - 14:00 Course Reps (2 of 3)

21st May Thursday 17:00 - 18:00 Open [City Campus] (2 of 2)

22nd May Friday 15:00 - 16:00 Caucus/Lay Student Councillors

26th May Tuesday 16:00 - 17:00 PGR Reps

27th May Wednesday 15:00 - 16:00 Course Reps (3 of 3)

Sabbaticals

11th May Monday 14:00 - 15:00 Debbie Hunt

12th May Tuesday 11:00 - 12:00 Lisa Burton

13th May Wednesday 12:00 - 13:00 Rachael Brannan

22nd May Friday 13:00 - 14:00 Lewis Still

Venue: Training Room


Appendix:B

Appendix:DList of meetings attended by Sabbatical Offi cers

• Board of Governors

• Academic Board

• Student Affairs Committee (SAC)

• University Learning & Teaching (ULT)

• University Research and Innovation Committee

• Academic Misconduct (Students) Group

• Enrolment Project Steering Group

• Library Users Group

• Smartcard Advisory Group

• Student Feedback Assessment Task Group

• International Enhancement Group

• Equality & Diversity Committee

• Equality & Diversity Forum

• Ethics Committee

• E-Learning Strategy Group

• Extenuating Circumstances Practitioner Group

• Student Feedback Analysis Group

• ISMCG (IT Strategy)

• Benchmarking Advisory Panel

• Vulnerable Students

• Health & Safety

• ELP Usergroup

• Safety & Security

• Marketing

• Review of Review Processes Task Group

• Sports Development Group

• Sports Implementation Group

• Student Volunteering

• Regional Strategy

• QAA Panel

• CETL Steering Group

• Peer Observation Task Group

Northumbria Student Learning Values 2008We aim to:

• Provide a module guide at the start of the semester that shows

a comprehensive plan for learning on the module

• Support and guide you through your learning

• Start and end all classes on time

• Provide you with timetable information at the start of each semester

and notify you of changes at least one week in advance

• Give you feedback on assessed work according to the schedule in the

module guide and within 21 working days of the submission deadline

• Give you clear, useful and informative feedback on your work

• Provide you with a timetable structure that enables you to engage in

activities beyond the curriculum

• Be available for diaried and timetabled appointments

• Treat you with respect at all times

• Support your preparation for your career

If you feel these aims are not being met please contact your School

and remember your Students’ Union is here to support you.

To get the most out of your time with Northumbria:

1 Use your module to develop your understanding of your subject

2 Effectively use the support and guidance provided to you

3 Regularly attend and actively participate in classes

4 Complete your work to the best of your ability, on time and in the correct format

5 Maintain academic integrity by avoiding plagiarism and other types

of academic misconduct

6 Keep up to date with course information through Blackboard,

University email and other channels

7 Use the feedback you are given to improve subsequent work

8 Make appropriate use of staff time and University facilities

9 Take responsibility for your personal development plan, skills

development and engagement in activities beyond the curriculum

10 Treat staff, fellow students and neighbours in the local community

with respect at all times

Guidelines for acceptable conduct in taught classesThe University is committed to creating an environment conducive to

learning that will benefi t all students. Feedback received from students has

suggested the following points of good practice and courtesy to Tutors and

fellow learners:

• Be Quiet

Chatting disturbs the speaker (staff or student) and disrupts the

concentration of others.

Noise levels, especially in larger lecture theatres, quickly accumulate

to unacceptable levels.

• Switch Off Mobile Phones

Making or receiving calls or using the camera facility on your mobile

are always unacceptable.

Texting in class can annoy other learners.

• Keep to Time

Coming into lectures late often disrupts the whole class, if you are

late please enter the room with the minimum of disruption.

The same rule applies if you need to leave early, do so with the

minimum of disruption and as a courtesy let your Tutor know

that you must leave early.

• Come Prepared and Ready to Work

This is particularly so in the case of seminars and group work where

other learners depend upon your input.

• Dispose of Your Litter Properly

For the benefi t of all users, please ensure that you leave all learning

spaces tidy and litter free.

Please note:

If staff consider your behaviour to be unacceptable you may be asked

to leave. If you have concerns about the application of these guidelines,

please talk to the Tutor or your course rep. There may be other guidance,

related to health, safety and professional issues in connection with

laboratory, studio and clinical spaces, which should be taken account

of in relation to acceptable behaviour. Please check your Programme

Handbook for relevant information.

Appendix:C

students' union student written submission

Documents

pgr students

students expectations

students unionsection

international students

new students

research student

student experience

national student survey