1913 - 2013

YEARS100

PostgraduatesWHO TEACH&DEMONSTRATE

In 2012 a survey was conducted by the National Union of Students

(NUS) to investigate the experience of postgraduates who teach;

it included questions on remuneration, job descriptions, contracts

and the application process. When the University of Nottingham

students’ responses were reviewed it was found that many felt the

survey did not allow them to accurately portray their opinions or

certain aspects such as their pay scale. This seemed to stem from the

high proportion of graduate demonstrators who responded to the

survey, which was not accounted for by the NUS survey. As such,

this research was designed to allow for more detailed, open-ended

responses which catered to the needs of graduate demonstrators as

well as postgraduates who teach. This survey was then distributed

via email to all postgraduate students currently registered at the

University of Nottingham as there is currently no central record

of all students involved in teaching and demonstrating, something

that may need to be rectified in the future.

Introduction

The demographics of the respondents who completed the survey can be seen in the table below. There was no significant difference between those who were excluded and those included in the analysis.

Male: 31Female: 36

Full-time: 62Part-time: 5

Research: 62Taught: 5

Under 25: 2926-30: 2731-35: 636-40: 340- 0

Arts: 12Engineering: 10 Medicine & Health Sciences:9Science: 30Social Sciences: 6

PARTICIPATION

SurveyRECEIVED67 OF THESE DATA SETS WERE USED IN THE ANALYSIS WHILST THE OTHER 40 WERE REMOVED DUE TO BEING INCOMPLETE.

GENDER MODE OF STUDY TYPE OF STUDY AGE FACULTY

THE

107 RESPONSES

19 respondents identified themselves as Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTA), 43 as Graduate Demonstrators (GDs), 4 as teaching fellows and 1 as a teaching technician. 4 respondents stated that teaching was a compulsory part of their studies.

PGTD REPORT | 03

To gain an understanding of the students’ motivations for teaching/demonstrating, respondents were given a number of proposed motivations for taking on the positions which they were asked to rate on a 6 point scale from “very strong motivation” to “not motivating at all”. The most strongly motivating reasons to become a GTA or GD for the majority

of respondents was “to gain teaching experience” and to “improve employability”; “financial” and to “improve/learn new skills” were also seen to be positively motivating factors. “Enjoyment of subject” and “enjoyment of teaching” were also motivation for a relatively high number of PGTs.

for TEACHINGMOTIVATION

“To gain teaching experience” was selected as a very strong motivation by 44.8% of respondents and was seen as motivating by over 95% of students. Improving employability (37.3%) and financial (35.8) aspects were also seen as very strong motivations for teaching/demonstrating whilst studying. A further 34.7% and 35.8% respectively stated that employability and finance were strongly motivating when deciding to apply for teaching and demonstrating roles.

Interestingly, a high proportion of respondents stated that they would like to continue into academia as a lecturer/researcher once they have completed

their current studies. In particular, 83.3% of the respondents from the Faculty of Social Science stated they would like to continue into a career as a lecturer. As such, it seems that motivation to teach is strongly related to future career. The number of individuals wishing to continue into academia should also be considered during the training stage, as this will not only effect current students being taught by postgraduates but perhaps also future students of Nottingham University if current postgraduates are successful in securing lecturing positions at the University of Nottingham once they have completed their PhDs.

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE COMPULSORY IMPROVE/LEARN SKILLS

IMPROVE EMPLOYMENT

ENJOYMENT OF TEACHING

ENJOYMENT OF SUBJECT

OTHER0

20

40

60

WHAT IS YOUR MAIN MOTIVATION(S) FOR TEACHING?

Very strong motivationStrong motivationSomewhat motivationing

Not very motivationingNot motivation at allNot applicable

04 | PGTD REPORT

A total of 23.9% of students said that they had felt pressured into taking on teaching or demonstrating at the University of Nottingham. Whilst the majority of these students said that this pressure was external, such as pressure to compete in the job market, 43.8% of these students said that this pressure came from lecturers/supervisors. Over a third of students teaching or demonstrating in the Faculty of Engineering stated that they had felt

pressured into the role by supervisors or lecturers. This form of pressure may explain why there seems to be a small percentage of respondents who say they are not motivated by an enjoyment of teaching/demonstrating. This is concerning as it may result in unenthusiastic and unconcerned teachers as well as lessening opportunities for those who would like to teach, but who the department may not have funding for.

FINANCIAL EXPERIENCE COMPULSORY IMPROVE/LEARN SKILLS

IMPROVE EMPLOYMENT

ENJOYMENT OF TEACHING

ENJOYMENT OF SUBJECT

OTHER

3.5

3

2

1

0

2.5

1.5

0.5

WHAT IS YOUR MAIN MOTIVATION(S) FOR TEACHING?

PGTD REPORT | 05

2.97 2.99 2.99

2.64 2.67

3.21

0.39 0.46

processAPPLICATION

Currently there is no enforced, standardised procedure for recruiting students to part-time or ad hoc teaching or demonstrating roles. This means that across faculties and schools a variation of methods are used and this can breed a sense of unfairness if individuals compare conditions of employment, pay and the application process itself.

The majority of respondents (43.3%) stated that their position was advertised through an internal source such as a department newsletter. Only 6% found their position through a formal, external source. Over a third (34.3%) stated that they were headhunted by staff with a further 11.9% saying their position was advertised through word of mouth.

The Arts faculty was most frequently seen to use formal methods of advertising, with Medicine and Health Sciences using formal advertising least frequently. According to University policy, all temporary, part-time and casual workers should be recruited through either TempWorks or Unitemps and as a result

formal advertisement should be used in 100% of cases. Whilst candidates can be identified prior to recruitment, a formal procedure should be followed in order to meet with equal opportunity and University regulations, as well as to ensure the quality of candidates being selected.

“There is no application process in my department and, while that benefited me in many ways, it seems somewhat unfair that others in my department don’t have the same opportunities as I do.”

Yes, through an internal source eg. department newsletter

No, I was headhunted/asked by a member of staff

No, I heard about the position through word of mouth

Yes, through an external source eg unitemps

No, I found out in an other way (please specify)

06 | PGTD REPORT

43.3%

34.3%11.9%

6.0%

4.5%

WAS YOUR POSITION FORMALLY ADVERTISED?

Arts

Engineering

Medicine & Science

Science

Social Science

PGTD REPORT | 07

The figure on the following page shows the percentage of respondents who had to submit supporting evidence when applying to teach/demonstrate. Only 37% had to complete an application form, less than a third submitted a CV and only 18% of GTA/GDs were asked to provide proof of previous qualifications or a

covering letter. Many respondents suggested there was no application process and that they were simply asked by staff to teach/demonstrate: “I didn’t have to apply.”, “Wasn’t really a process”. This raises questions about the level of quality control over the candidates being employed to teach students at the University.

Whilst allowing students without previous teaching experience can be a useful opportunity to practice teaching the discipline and furthering their professional development, there should also be considerable consideration of what impact this level of inexperience may have on the students being taught by GTAs/GDs.

In order to ensure a high standard of education, in-depth training and a monitoring process for feedback and improvement is needed, however training is somewhat sporadic and the number of GTA/GDs receiving feedback is relatively low, with even fewer receiving formal feedback.

ARTS

COVERING LETTER

ENGINEERING

CV

MEDICINE & HEALTH SCIENCE

APPLICATION FORM

SCIENCE

PROOF OF PREVIOUS QUALIFICATIONS

SOCIAL SCIENCE

100%

100%

40%

40%

80%

80%

20%

20%

60%

60%

0%

0%

90%

90%

30%

30%

70%

70%

10%

10%

50%

50%

FORMAL ADVERTISEMENT OF POSITION

DID YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE ANY OF THE FOLLOWING WHEN APPLYING TO TEACH/DEMONSTRATE?

Although the majority of respondents said that the application process was very or somewhat clear, (55.2% and 28.4% respectively) a number of comments suggested that this process could be improved through formalisation. Suggestions included formal advertising of roles with clear workload, role and pay guidelines and making the selection criteria more transparent.

Although the vast majority of respondents stated that they thought the application process

was very fair (52.2%) or somewhat fair (37.3%) it is important to note that only those who benefited from this procedure by securing a position as a GTA or GD have completed the survey. For those who were unsuccessful during the application process or simply were not made aware of available opportunities, the perception of fairness might differ. In order to reduce this inequality and ensure a standard quality of teaching, the application process should be uniform both within and across departments, schools and faculties.

Very clear

Somewhat clear

Somewhat unclear

Very unclear

08 | PGTD REPORT

HOW CLEAR DID YOU FIND THE APPLICATION PROCESS?

55.2%

28.4%

9.0%

7.5%

clarityROLEDue to the informal nature of the current recruitment method, many students agreed to teach/demonstrate without first viewing a written job description. Even after successful recruitment 17.9% of respondents stated that they do not have a job description and a further 10.5% said that the job description they did receive was somewhat or very unclear. As well as establishing the employees’ responsibilities and expectations, it is also a legal requirement

that all employees receive a job description within 3 months of work regardless of whether this is part-time or casual work. However, the number of students with a job description is almost double than during the NUS survey sampled in 2012. Currently the Faculty of Arts has the most students employed without a job description at a little under one quarter with the Engineering department having the lowest level - just 9%.

Very clear

Somewhat clear

Somewhat unclear

Very unclear

I did not receive a job description

PGTD REPORT | 09

HOW CLEAR DID YOU FIND THE JOB DESCRIPTION?

In addition to a job description, each student should also be provided with a written contract which outlines their remuneration, holiday and sick pay entitlement. However, almost a third of students stated that they did not have a contract and a further 11.9% said that the contract they possessed was unclear. More worrying was that several students commented that this did not apply to them, which

highlights that some students are not even aware that they have a legal right to a work contract. Whilst the percentage of student teachers/demonstrators who do have a contract has risen from 45% in 2012 to 67.2% in 2013, it should be the case that all students should receive a clear, written contract from the University regardless of whether the nature of their work is casual or temporary.

38.8%

32.8%

6.0%

17.9%

4.5%

Arts

Engineering

Medicine & Science

Science

Social ScienceARTS ENGINEERING MEDICINE &

HEALTH SCIENCESCIENCE SOCIAL

SCIENCE

95%

85%

75%

90%

80%

70%

PROVIDED WITH JOB DESCRIPTION

Over half of the respondents from the Faculty of Science stated that they do not currently have a contract; comparatively over 90% of

students from the Faculty of Arts stated that they had received contracts.

Although the number of GTA/GDs with contracts was higher than expected based on the NUS survey data, it should be noted that this survey was conducted towards the end of the academic year. Although 67.2% of respondents had a contract at the time of the survey, it is clear from the survey comments

that a significant percentage of these students did not receive clear contracts or job descriptions until later in the academic year.

“I didn’t even receive a contract until I’d been working for several weeks so had no idea at what rate I was being paid or my job requirements”

Very clear

Somewhat clear

Somewhat unclear

Very unclear

I did not receive a written contract

10 | PGTD REPORT

HOW CLEAR WAS YOUR CONTRACT?

32.8%

1.5%

10.4%

29.9%

25.4%

Arts

Engineering

Medicine & Science

Science

Social Science

ARTS ENGINEERING MEDICINE & HEALTH SCIENCE

SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE

100%

40%

80%

20%

60%

0%

90%

30%

70%

10%

50%

PROVIDED WITH THE CONTRACT

PGTD REPORT | 11

Additionally, a number of respondents stated that although they had received information about their roles, pay and responsibility at the time of commencing their work, this then changed during their period of employment. The majority of these complaints were about increased work load. As all of these teachers and demonstrators are also undertaking their own studies or research it is important that there is an appropriate work-study balance, especially if the amount of teaching responsibilities changes halfway through the year. Furthermore, for those students who receive block payments which are agreed in advance, this change in workload may mean that they are working more hours and taking on more responsibility without a corresponding pay increase.

“I was told that I would be marking 20 lab reports but I was given much more than that”

“We were initially told to expect no more than 10 students per tutor group and that the essays we would mark would be 1000 words long. This was changed to 1500 word essays and some tutors who had taken on 2 tutor groups ended up with 7 extra students between the two groups. All groups had more than 10 students, and tutors were required to mark extra essays on top of those handed in by their tutees because some students had not signed up to a tutor”

“There was a lot more hours involved than I understood from the induction”

As well as breeding a sense of unfairness some students also expressed feelings of being exploited by the University in terms of pay and workload. Additionally a number of students stated that they felt pressure to take up teaching/demonstrating work by departmental staff. A small number of students endorsed the statement that they did not have the time to complete both their teaching and scholastic responsibilities to the best of their ability. Whilst teaching and demonstrating at Nottingham University may offer valuable experience for many students it is important that postgraduates understand the time and effort they must commit to these roles prior to entering into employment with the University, so that they can assess whether their research/studies will suffer as a result. This can only be done if accurate and enforceable job descriptions and contracts are provided to all GTA/Ds at commencement of employment.

“As a group of GTAs in our department, the discrepancy between each of our workloads is appalling. Our contracts do not state what counts as our hours- is it teaching only, or marking, or tutoring or preparing lessons? There is no clarification on this and it means some GTAs spend hours prepping, whilst others do not. Some GTAs are forced to mark, whilst others are not. Yet we are all paid the same salary and offered the same opportunities.”

12 | PGTD REPORT

TRAINING92.5% of students stated that they had received some kind of training from the University centrally, their department or both, however this varied by faculty (as shown in the figure below). Less than 40% of respondents had received University training and only half of the respondents said that they had received training on how to mark students’ work. In both the Arts and Social Sciences faculties 100% of respondents had been trained, although it should be noted that there was only a small sample (6 respondents) of Social Science students who completed the survey. Over a

quarter of respondents from the Engineering Faculty, in comparison, have not received any training from either the University or their department.

Due to the nature of the application process, in which there seems to be no call for teaching experience or qualification for selection, it is vital that there is some form of training to ensure the quality of teaching. This is even more important now that students are paying £9000 a year in fees and so are expecting to be taught by expert and fully qualified teaching staff.

Only half of all the respondents stated that they had received training on how to mark student work. Whilst this is of concern for the students who deserve consistent and fair marking it may also explain why a number of survey respondents claimed that marking takes them considerably longer than expected by lecturers and is reflected in their pay.

Additionally, 40.2% of participants stated that they had received training on University rules and regulations. This low percentage is concerning as GTA/Ds may open the University up to liability if they do not follow procedures outlined in the University’s regulations.

Arts

Engineering

Medicine & Science

Science

Social ScienceARTS ENGINEERING MEDICINE &

HEALTH SCIENCESCIENCE SOCIAL

SCIENCE

100%

60%

20%

80%

40%

0%

TRAINING BY FACULTY

PGTD REPORT | 13

65.7% of respondents said that they had received practical teacher training, which is the highest of all types of training. Whilst this is a positive response, in order to ensure some level of consistency and quality all GTAs should be encouraged, if not required, to complete this training.

A number of comments were collected that suggested that the training overall lacked a level of applicability to the specific subjects being taught. For instance, one respondent complained that she was taught how to mark a biology exam at her training when she would in fact be marking English essays. This generic training may be useful initially, particularly for those students who have little teaching experience; however, faculty-based training may be required. Additionally, a number of students complained that the University training was not available to them until several months into their teaching appointment and that by this point it was too broad to be of use to them.

The most common suggestions for improving training included information on discipline related instruction, how to mark fairly yet efficiently and how to communicate effectively

with students. Respondents particularly wanted to know how to successfully involve and communicate with aggressive, uncommunicative and disengaged students.

“More specific training should be introduced to the module, i.e How to actually answer relevant questions from students. How to mark more consistently with other demonstrators.”

“I recently went to a residential workshop which focused on teaching methodologies specifically for my discipline - that was great. The University training, although initially helpful, is much too broad to be properly meaningful.”

“More specific marking guidelines related to the actual task being carried out, not just ‘general’ training.”

A quarter of those who received training stated that it was very useful and 60% said that they thought the training was somewhat useful. Whilst this is a fairly positive response, making some adjustments in line with the respondents’ suggestions outlined above may improve the number of postgraduate teachers and demonstrators who find the training useful.

RULES & REGULATIONS

MARKETING PRACTICAL THEORY/METHODOLGY

COMMUNICATIONADMINISTRATION

IT FOR TEACHING OTHER

100%

80%

50%

10%

90%

60%

20%

70%

30%40%

0%

WHAT IS YOUR MAIN MOTIVATION(S) FOR TEACHING?

Arts

Engineering

Medicine & Health Science

Science

Social Science

“I would like to be able to complete some sort of qualification as I feel I am doing quite a lot and want this to be formally recognised. Also, I am considering my career options and teaching is something that I am considering, so a qualification would be very useful in that respect”

Currently, only 6% of those surveyed said that they could receive credits towards a Postgraduate Certificate in Higher Education by teaching during their studies. An additional 7.5% said that they could work towards obtaining a qualification as part of

the Associate Teacher Program and 11.9% said they have received informal acknowledgement in the form of an attendance certificate for training. As almost a third of those surveyed state that they wished to pursue a career in teaching/lecturing once they had completed their studies, it would be greatly beneficial to receive some formal recognition of the training and experience gained as postgraduate teachers. This might also raise students’ satisfaction with their role as it would seem more beneficial to them in the long run and would be a reward in addition to their pay.

Very useful

Somewhat useful

Not very useful

Not at all useful

14 | PGTD REPORT

IF YOU RECEIVED TRAINING, HOW USEFUL WAS THIS?

60.0%

10.0%

5.0%

25.0%

PGTD REPORT | 15

PAYThe majority of postgraduate teachers and demonstrators are paid an hourly wage and all are paid above the national minimum wage. However, as more than 50% of them are not paid for preparation of teaching/demonstrating

or student consultations, and for those 58% who do get paid for marking they are paid for less time than it actually takes, the reality is that their pay per hour is actually much lower than it seems.

Whilst a number of respondents on both this and the NUS survey noted that their pay was relatively lower than expected when preparation and marking was considered, and that their pay for

marking was not representative of the time required to mark effectively, the vast majority of postgraduates considered the pay “very fair” or “somewhat fair”.

PREPARATION MARKETING ATTENDING TRAINING

STUDENT CONSULTATION

100%

60%

20%

80%

40%

0%

PERCENTAGE OF STUDENTS WHO RECEIVE PAYMENT FOR PREPERATION, MARKING, TRAINING AND STUDENT CONSULTATION

However, the inexperience of the postgraduate teachers and demonstrators should be considered when estimating the time taken to prepare and mark student work. This might be in the form of more in-depth training on how to mark most efficiently, or by paying per script rather than assuming the length of time it will take to mark scripts and paying based on that assumption.

“My pay is just based on the 2 hour seminar I teach, hours spent preparing are not included. I am paid a reduced rate for my office hour.”

“We are paid a fixed number of hours to mark work regardless of how long it actually takes. It is not possible to mark properly in the time we are paid”

“It [payment] wasn’t mentioned at all. As I didn’t get a contract until a month after working it wasn’t an option to discuss this or change my mind.”

Very fair

Somewhat fair

Not very fair

Very unfair

16 | PGTD REPORT

HOW FAIR DO YOU THINK THE PAY IS FOR YOUR POSITION

50.7%

31.3%

3.0%

14.9%

PGTD REPORT | 17

REPRESENTATIONOnly 37.3% of respondents said that they have a representative in their school or faculty. As so few students are members of a teachers’ union (only 2% in the NUS survey 2012) it is important that the postgraduate teachers and demonstrators have internal representation. The majority of students did not feel

supported in their role by the University’s Students’ Union or simply did not understand how these two bodies could help them. However, the majority of respondents said that they felt supported by supervisors, lecturing and administration staff in their role as teachers/demonstrators.

26.9% of respondents said that they feel “very supported” overall in their role and 65.7% stated that they feel “somewhat supported”. However, one student commented that he and a number of his peers were dissatisfied with some of their working conditions and wished to raise these issues, yet they were concerned that this may have a negative impact on the support they currently receive from supervisors and other lecturing staff. As such, it would seem these students need to be made aware of the representation systems in place and how these can be utilised if they feel they are being mistreated or exploited by the University in some way.

“I was hired for my teaching skills, but feel like an exploited underdog. We are trying to organise together to raise these issues, but we are scared of what impact this will have on our future careers and supervisory relationships.”

“I am unaware of any support offered to GTAs from the SU or PGSA.”

“Greater support in the form of having a demonstrator representative to liaise with the faculty/school would be appreciated.”

DO YOU HAVE A PERSON IN YOUR SCHOOL/FACULTY WHO IS ASSIGNED TO REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF POSTGRADUATES WHO TEACH/DEMONSTRATE?

Yes

No

62.7%

37.3%

Very supported

Somewhat supported

Somewhat unsupported

Very unsupported

18 | PGTD REPORT

OVERALL HOW SUPPORTED DO YOU FEEL IN YOUR TEACHING/DEMONSTRATING POSITION AT NOTTINGHAM UNIVERSITY?

65.7%

26.9%

3.0%4.5%

PGTD REPORT | 19

FEEDBACKOnly 50% of those surveyed said that they had received feedback on their performance as a graduate teaching assistant or postgraduate demonstrator, and this percentage was even lower for the engineering faculty (see appendix A for faculty statistics). Of those who received feedback the majority stated that this was informal verbal feedback from module staff or “word of mouth” from students. Whilst the vast majority found

both lecturer and student feedback either useful or very useful, many stated it could be improved. The most popular suggestions were to formalise the procedure, provide written feedback with actionable advice for improvement and to provide feedback at multiple stages throughout the term to allow for criticisms to be acted upon in order to improve their skills.

As many of the postgraduate teachers and demonstrators see their roles as part of their professional development, and are motivated by the opportunity to learn new skills and a desire to pursue a career in academia, feedback is an important part of this process.

In addition, a feedback process would allow departments to assess their employees’ work and ensure that the students are receiving a high standard of education from the postgraduates they employ.

YES, FROM MY SUPERVISOR

YES, FROM MY MODULE TEACHING

STAFF

YES, FROM STUDENTS

NO

100%

60%

20%

80%

40%

0%

HAVE YOU RECEIVED FEEDBACK ON YOUR TEACHING/DEMONSTRATING WORK?

Very useful

Somewhat useful

Not very useful

Not at all useful

Very useful

Somewhat useful

Not very useful

Not at all useful

IF YOU RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM LECTURERS (INCLUDING YOUR SUPERVISOR) HOW USEFUL DID YOU FIND IT?

IF YOU RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM YOUR STUDENTS HOW USEFUL WAS THIS?

35.1%

59.5%

2.7%

2.7%

“No formal feedback, just comments upon seeing students again”

“I wasn’t observed until my last class of term. I’d have liked if this had been done earlier so that I could have been reassured Iwas doing the right thing! Having had no real training this would have been so helpful.”

“[I would like] Implementation of a feedback system from course staff/students and a merit system based on this feedback and consideration for future demonstration.”

20 | PGTD REPORT

50.0%

2.8%

11.1%

36.1%

PGTD REPORT | 21

RECOMMENDATIONSBased on the responses of this and the NUS survey of 2012, along with the comments collected from students during student consultations, the following recommendations are made:

1. In order to ensure a fair employee selection process and guarantee high- quality teaching for the University’s students, the advertisement, application process and selection criteria should be standardised and formalised.

2. A formal and compulsory feedback/ assessment process should be introduced in order to allow for professional development opportunities and to maintain a high-quality standard of teaching by postgraduates.

3. Those who do not have experience teaching in higher education or of the department’s marking process should be required to attend training prior to commencing their teaching/ marking duties.

4. All students employed by the University should be issued with a formal job description and contract. In order to be legal this contract must be issued within three months, ideally the contract should be available to view prior to commencing teaching duties.

5. Essentially: the remuneration process should be clearly explained to the candidate prior to commencing employment. Ideally: pay should be standardised across departments and some provision for time spent marking should be made.

Representation of postgraduate who teach and demonstrate at the University should be championed and GTA/Ds should be made aware of the support available to them through the Students’ Union and Postgraduate Officer.

22 | PGTD REPORT

AppendixDEPARTMENT BREAK DOWN:

ARTS ENGINEERING MEDICINE & HEALTH SCIENCE SOCIAL SCIENCE

Formal Advert

Received Job Desc.

Received Contract

Received Training

Felt Supported in Role

Received Feedback on Teaching/Demonstrating

37%

23%

92%

100%

100%

84%

54%

90%

72%

72%

74%

63%

51%

74%

52%

54%

93%

33%

50%

86%

86%

100%

100%

84%

28%

81%

73%

64%

72%

55%

Laura Theobald (Postgraduate Officer): supgofficer@nottingham.ac.uk

Luke Vaillancourt (Postgraduate Representation Co-ordinator): luke.vaillancourt@nottingham.ac.uk

Ruth Edgar (Education Network Manager): ruth.edgar@nottingham.ac.uk

Johanna Myddleton (Education Network Researcher)

Laura Theobald (Postgraduate Officer): supgofficer@nottingham.ac.uk

Luke Vaillancourt (Postgraduate Representation Co-ordinator): luke.vaillancourt@nottingham.ac.uk

Ruth Edgar (Education Network Manager): ruth.edgar@nottingham.ac.uk

Johanna Myddleton (Education Network Researcher)

Education Network OfficeB Floor, Portland Building

T (0115) 748 4469 E sucoursereps@nottingham.ac.uk

www.su.nottingham.ac.uk/education-network