LiverpoolSU Student Written Submissions 2015

N E T T I R W T N E D STU 5 1 0 2 N O I S S I M B SU

CONTENTS

Introduction:

PAGE 3

Methodology: 4 Progress since the last review:

5

Why Students Love LJMU

7

Student Voice at LJMU

9

Review of LJMU research

18

Assessment and feedback

25

Personal tutors

34

Placements 36 Teaching quality

40

International students

45

Complaints and appeals

47

Employability 49 Conclusion 55

INTRODUCTION Liverpool Students’ Union (LiverpoolSU) is pleased to present the Student Written Submission (SWS), written on behalf of Liverpool John Moores University (LJMU) students, as part of the current Higher Education Review of LJMU. In a time of change for higher education, we are proud that LJMU is going from strength to strength. With impressive movement up the league tables, climbing up 13 places in the Complete University Guide, being one of only 11 universities in the UK to improve their performance by ten places or more over last year, and moving up a massive 22 places in the Guardian league table; it is clear we have a lot to celebrate.

practice to improve their learning experience. When student comments tend to be so consistent it would be irresponsible of us to simply dismiss them based on small sample sizes.

You’ll see through this report that we have gained invaluable insight into what students think about their everyday experience as a student at LJMU. It has been amazing to talk to so many engaged students who clearly want the best out of their education.

The authoring of this report has been led by the LiverpoolSU President, in consultation with LJMU staff and students.

In May 2014 LiverpoolSU moved from our main base at The Haigh Building to the John Foster Building and a number of hub sites across campus to become better placed for LJMU students; these hubs are known as our MiniSU sites. The aim of this move was to ensure that students are able to access our services and opportunities a lot more easily, and our GOATing activity would reach more students than ever before.

Going out and talking to students (GOATing) face to face is a process which we believe is critical in enabling us to truly understand the student voice. As such, we have spent significant time and resources GOATing to collect data that has been key to shaping the content of this report.

Although the sample sizes are not always significant, our face to face work confirms what various local and national reports such as the NSS inform us year in and year out, whilst also raising the profile of student voice with students. More importantly, where survey data can only indicate the existence of a problem, GOATing offers more insight to the depth of the problem, and will often point towards the solution. GOATing can also be a valuable tool for determining not just whether or not LJMU has a policy in place, but whether or not this policy is recognised by students, and is working in

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

N-FR ANCOIS LORR AINE SEBASTIA ENT REP PRESIDENT AND LEAD

STUD

3

METHODOLOGY: This report has been put together using data from our previous LiverpoolSU Faculty Student Voice Reports (FSVRs)1, which have now been in place for five years, and are produced bi-annually. We have also used current feedback from students, collected via our MiniSU sites, lecture shout outs, online surveys, and feedback from engaged LiverpoolSU volunteers, such as Course Reps. Where we have included italicised quotes, theses have come from student comments through our GOATing activity.

LiverpoolSU recruits and trains seven International Research Volunteers, and we have utilised these volunteers to carry out specific and targeted GOATing activities to enable us to understand more about the learning and community experience of international students. The results of this GOATing has contributed to this report and shaped our reflections on the international student experience.

We would like to thank LJMU for allowing us access to a wealth of survey data and evidence, such as the LJMU Student Survey, the UK Engagement Survey (UKES), the National Student Survey (NSS) and the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES).

LiverpoolSU invested resources to analyse this data and summarise some of the key findings and highlights of the issues that students are raising; we have then used this additional data to support the feedback collected via our GOATing activity.

During the process of putting this report together, we have had over 4,000 face to face conversations with students, which we have used to bring to life the evidence and data that we have, as outline above.

We recognise that the Postgraduate experience is an area in which we need to cultivate a stronger understanding, and we are currently in the process of developing our representative activities and mechanisms to ensure that we deliver a service that meets the needs of these students. For the purpose of our SWS we have used the PTES as a basis for us to comment, with a degree of legitimacy, on the experience of postgraduate taught students. However, due to a relatively limited number of conversations with Postgraduate Taught students, and a reliance on commenting on data, our insight into the experience of these students is restricted. This also applies to the experience of Postgraduate Research students.

Throughout this report we have not commented on the experience of Collaborative Partnership Students.

Traditionally, we do not consider the students who study at these partner institutions as our members and as such cannot allocate significant resource to them, a view that was supported by LJMU registry.

Full membership of LiverpoolSU is currently granted to LJMU students, studying an LJMU course, taught by LJMU staff at an LJMU owned premise. We appreciate that the Higher Education sector is constantly changing, and that this approach may not be fit for purpose in the future, and we look forward to working with LJMU in the future to discuss ways that the service we provide for these students might develop. However you will see that for the purpose of this report, under our current provisions, we have decided not to include the voices of students who study at any of LJMU’s partner colleges.

LiverpoolSU is confident that we have involved students across all four faculties; Arts, Professional and Social Studies (APSS), Education, Health and Community (EHC), Engineering and Technology (FET) and Science (SCS), and that this SWS is an accurate reflection of their learning experience.

We found the optional template for student submissions provided by the Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) to be useful, and have largely followed this to structure the content of our report. We have largely focussed on the questions asked under academic standards, learning opportunities and enhancement. We decided not to address public information as a topic, because the University were in the process of undertaking a lot of work on a new website, which was completed towards the end of the 2014/15 academic year, when it is traditionally hard to gain student feedback. We felt that it would be unfair for our comments to be based around feedback that students had given based on previous information and services that had been available to students. At the Higher Education Review Steering Group, we suggest that usability tests were carried out with students to ensure that the new website was student friendly and the information was easy to find. We look forward to working with LJMU colleagues in the new academic year to see how students find the new website.

To summarise, the process for putting our SWS together has combined a variety of different resources to give the most accurate perspective possible, and to ensure that student views are at the heart of this report.

All FSVRs are available on request from LiverpoolSU.

1

4

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

IEW: V E R T S A L E H T E C PROGRESS SIN The audit report included one essential recommendation, one advisable recommendation and five desirable recommendations. The recommendations are listed below.

Essential recommendation: •

ensure that awards of the ‘recognition and validation’ type in overseas collaborative provision are aligned with the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications (FHEQ), 2008.

Advisable recommendation: • ensure that the University Standing Panel is clearly placed within the academic management structure, that its membership and terms of reference are reviewed, and that the Panel is clearly referenced in publications.

Desirable recommendations: •

work towards ensuring that external examiners’ reports are seen consistently by all boards of studies and, thus, by students representatives

•

ensure that there is a clearly communicated and consistently operated system of deadlines for the provision to students of feedback on assessment

•

bring the practice of interim Personal Development and Performance Review into line with formal expectation

•

provide more guidance on how many postgraduate research students a supervisor might be expected to manage

•

ensure that postgraduate research students undertaking teaching are provided with adequate guidance and support.

develop our representative activities for, before offering legitimate comment on their experience. As such, we do not feel that we can confidently comment on the changes that have been made, or the involvement of students in these changes, for these recommendations.

However, under the ‘Student Voice at LJMU’ section in this report we have addressed how effective we believe LJMU to be in sharing good practice.

With regards to the other recommendations, we can confidently comment that the University has addressed the advisable recommendation by revising and clarifying the terms of reference for the University Standing Panel, stating unambiguously that this Panel, and not faculties, will approve programmes.

In addition, as part of our Course Rep Survey, about which we go into more detail later in our report, we spoke to Course Reps about external examiner reports, which had three desirable recommendations for improvement in the last review.

Members of LiverpoolSU are invited to be part of all meetings within LJMU with regards to the current and previous Higher Education Reviews. However our input into, and attendance at these meetings has sometimes been less impactful than we would have liked, due to limited resources. We go on to speak about this in more detail later in the report. In addition to this, three of the seven recommendations related to collaborative provision and postgraduate students; who we have previously recognised as students whose experience we need to cultivate a stronger understanding of, and

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

5

The University addressed the recommendations about external examiner reports through a number of measures; •

All external examiners’ reports for 2010-11 were sent to Boards of Studies as parts of annual monitoring reports.

•

From the academic year 2012-13 onwards, all external examiners’ reports will go to October meetings of Boards of Studies.

•

From 2012-13 external examiners’ reports will be available to all students on the relevant programme sites on the University’s virtual learning environment.

Unfortunately, when we asked Course Reps through the End of Year Survey ‘Do you have access to external examiner reports?’ only 14 out of 45 stated that they did. Further still, when the 14 Course Reps were asked if they ‘had a chance to feedback on external examiner reports’, it resulted in a 50/50 split of yes and no’s.

In addition, we asked Course Reps at our Annual Conference in December 2014 about the external examiner reports. The table below contains the three questions we asked along with the 28 Course Reps responses;

External Examiner Awareness Yes

No

Do you know what an external examiner report is?

10

18

Have you had access to an external examiner report?

14

14

If you did, did you understand it?

8

20

It must be noted that Course Reps who attended the Course Rep Conference, may have also filled in the End of Year Survey. However, the data illustrates that external examiner reports are not a document that the majority of Course Reps feel they have access to, or even aware what is it, how to use it, or what they are expected to do with it.

We feel that a large contributing factor to this is the date in which Course Reps are being asked to comment on, or know about these reports. In October, Course Reps are often either new to the role, or in many cases, not even elected/selected yet. As such, asking them to comment on something as sophisticated as an external examiner report, without access to training or support is unfair.

recommendation to ‘ensure that there is a clearly communicated and consistently operated system of deadlines for the provision to students of feedback on assessment’, as we have dedicated an entire section to Assessment and Feedback, we will address this in more detail here.

Despite our lack of comment on some areas, based on the documentation we have been provided with

by LJMU, including progress reports that have been produced for the QAA, we are confident that there is evidence that all the recommendations in the audit report have been considered and appropriate actions agreed and implemented. Going forward, it is important across all areas that we now ensure that the policy reflects the practice.

The final recommendation that we feel we can legitimately comment on is the desirable

6

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

MU J L E V O L S T N E D U T WH Y S It can often seem that the student voice focuses solely on those things that should be better, and can fail to recognise the many positive aspects of the student experience at LJMU. However, as a Union we do not exist to be critical, but to help LJMU achieve excellence and through our work we wanted to proactively give students the chance to show that there are many excellent things that happen at LJMU and that these things are most definitely appreciated.

Good teaching is something students will remember for the rest of their lives. We hear so much about the student experience but it is really down to all those individuals who are totally committed to doing their very best.

To support this, five years ago we introduced the Amazing Teaching Awards. The idea was simple, we wanted to allow students to nominate individuals and areas that they feel have made a positive impact on their University experience.

Students can nominate in six categories; Amazing Teacher, Amazing Course Team, Amazing Support Team, Amazing Academic Supervisor, Amazing Personal Tutor and Amazing Course Representative.

This year alone we received 1,288 nominations, with Amazing Teacher once again being flooded with students nominating. The nominations are a real credit to the staff who work at LJMU, who have a genuine passion to make the student experience the very best it can be, and we are delighted with how well these awards continue to be received by students and staff alike.

Recently we were invited to share this data at LJMU’s Teaching and Learning Conference, held in June 2015, and we talk in further detail throughout this report about the comments that regularly come through the nominations, and what it is that students think makes excellent teaching.

In addition to the Amazing Teaching Awards, in December 2014 we ran a Christmas card campaign, where we asked students across all four faculties to write a Christmas card to the Dean of their Faculty, letting them know what they were most thankful for from their first semester.

In total we spoke to 469 students who wrote cards filled with warmth; with students wanting to thank

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

their lecturers for having a positive impact on their student experience, and predominately wishing specific lecturers or staff a happy festive season.

LiverpoolSU’s four student officers then delivered these Christmas cards to the Deans of each Faculty, a gesture which was well-received.

Almost a quarter of students spoke positively about Teaching Quality within their Faculty. Students praised their lecturers on teaching that is passionate, enthusiastic, and interesting, and even enjoy their humour at times. Many wanted to thank their lecturers by name, highlighting individuals and what they love about them.

“I like my course because the lecturers are good and also they make the information come easily.

So thank you for that!”

“X in Data Analysis. Really enjoyed your lectures, you’re the bubbliest lecturer I’ve known and are always there to help. Have a great Christmas” Students also spoke about the interesting content during lectures and the quality of teaching staff on their course. Some students even commented on the high quality of content taught in lectures which has been useful for independent study outside of lectures.

“Computer games technology course is interesting; looking forward to semester 2” Students comments confirmed what we are regularly told through our Amazing Teaching Awards, that they want to experience teaching which is interactive, engaging and interesting.

Dance Practices students mentioned on multiple occasions their intensive weeks. This is clearly an activity that students really appreciate and see as a valuable part of their course.

“I really enjoyed the intensive week with X and want to do it again.”

Students were filled with so much praise for many of their lecturers describing them as; awesome, brilliant, amazing, entertaining and interesting. In addition, many students said that they were enjoying their

7

course, illustrating the positive impact teaching quality can have on students’ university experience.

Although not directly linked with lecturers teaching styles, students also commented positively on the impact of having guest lectures, particularly within APSS. They highlighted how they added to the teaching experience and appreciated that these sessions were interesting, insightful and a nice break from the usual lectures.

“To journalism course, thank you for all of the interesting and insightful guest lecturers this year!”

“The strategic management guest lectures I thought were actually surprisingly interesting and gave a good break to the usual lectures. Merry Christmas x”

Students were also thankful for various opportunities that had been made available to them. These included the people they had met, going on field trips or having the opportunity to go out on placement.

“I’m happy that I got my placement with St. Helens rugby team.”

“The opportunity to go to South Africa for research was invaluable” Students also rated the valuable transferable employability and interpersonal skills that certain aspects of their course provided, and the support they receive when thinking about placements, future employment or postgraduate study.

“I like the help that we get with our future career prospects”

It is great to hear such positivity from the student body, highlighting all the fantastic teaching that goes on in the Faculty. The students clearly appreciate all the work and effort that academics put into the role, and this is a credit to staff right across LJMU.

Comments further illustrated how practical teaching sessions provided students the opportunity to learn new skills and in turn helped towards their employability and personal development.

Students also wanted to say thank you to both individuals and course teams for the support they received throughout semester one.

“Applied module is much better this year, sounding more relevant and practical. I just had a visual perception lecture and it was really good, got so much out of it that wasn’t on slides.”

“Thanks to the supervisors for always responding to my emails, more support than officially expected, encouraging ideas/ thoughts, feedback always prompt and detailed, never annoyed with my million questions, reliable.”

“Thank you for all your guidance and support and for pushing us to be better dancers!”

Students from FET spoke positively about the help and support they had received in the first semester, with students from the School of Engineering, Technology and Maritime rating this support most highly. The feedback we received highlighted that students felt that lectures had listened to them throughout the year.

Academic support was what APS students were most thankful about this year, with over a quarter of students commenting on the amount of support they received in the first semester.

“I am a student on the LPC part time. I have found the volume of work very challenging. My personal tutor X has guided and supported me.

I don’t believe I could have achieved what I have without her help. However I have found all staff X, X and X very helpful…”

8

“Loved all the cooking practicals and the trip to London was really fun, with lots of free food for cooking” Students within APSS once again commented on the real-life employability skills their course had provided them with this year. Students rated the opportunities that their course brings with an emphasis on gaining transferable skills, and getting an insight into the industry.

Guest lecturers were mentioned again, only this time students commented on how great it was to be able to have an insight into the industry and real-life application of the concepts they had learnt in the classroom.

“Thank you for giving me the confidence to conduct my first interview.”

“Thanks for an epic return to school and another awesome term. Special shout outs to X, X, X and the lovely lady right at the front of the law school office. Much love to the law school. HAPPY HOLIDAYS! Your student Law Society 2014/2015”

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

L J MU STUDENT VOICE AT The following section will cover the main mechanisms we have, both internally and externally, to represent the Student Voice, and how effective these are in creating change.

RELATIONSHIP WITH LJMU We appreciate the positive, constructive relationship we have with the University, whereby we are included in the high level discussions and debate about the future of the student experience at LJMU. We further welcome the value LJMU places on the role of LiverpoolSU in legitimately representing student opinion and being able to be both honest and challenging about areas in which we think the University can improve.

When the current Vice Chancellor came into post, as part of his induction LiverpoolSU put together a document which outlined the ways in which we could work together in partnership. This was positively received and a number of the suggestions that we made were implemented. As a result, the relationship and access that we have to LJMU’s Strategic Management Team (SMT) is fantastic and we are given a number of opportunities to meet with them.

However, whilst our relationship and access to SMT is good, this is not necessarily reflected as changes that are decided are fed down. We would appreciate the support of SMT to help develop relationships on a more grass root level of the organisation, for example with Programme Leaders, who have almost daily contact with the students that we exist to represent. In addition this would help us be able to better track the impact of the changes that we make for students, finding out whether policy that has been agreed through committee structure and at the top level is happening and working in practice. It would be helpful if SMT could communicate the importance to colleagues at all levels of the benefits of a positive relationship with LiverpoolSU, and offering examples of how this might look in practice.

We are currently working with the University to develop a data sharing agreement, allowing us to be able to directly communicate with our members and take a targeted approach to our marketing, which would come with an array of benefits to both LiverpoolSU and LJMU. Whilst we appreciate the need for bureaucracy in an organisation the size of LJMU, it can sometimes,

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

possibly unfairly, seem that issues that we raise or recommendations that are made through various reports that we write can take a long time to be dealt with and/or come to a conclusion. Going forward we would welcome the opportunity to open up a conversation about the procedures and processes that LJMU must go through to pass certain decisions, the length of time that might take and the best route for it to take, e.g. through the committee structure or through meetings with particular members of staff.

This would allow us to feel confident that we have a real understanding of LJMU’s committee structures and processes, and we can work with them to have the best impact for our students.

STUDENT REPRESENTATION ON LJMU MEETINGS: Student representation on University committees is an important element of the University’s governance and compliance with guidelines set out by the QAA. Attendance at these meetings by student representatives provides and important link between the student body and the key decision making bodies within LJMU. Chapter B5 of the UK Quality Code for Higher Education focuses on the provision of an inclusive environment for student engagement; indicators 3, 4 and 5 in particular focus on ways that student representation on committees can be best supported, and recognises the importance of training and induction.

The role of a student representative as a committee member does not stop there. Student representatives have a responsibility to ensure that the students that they represent are aware of their existence, their role within the meeting and how students can contribute, so that they are able to effectively represent students’ views. They should also feedback, where appropriate, to the students that they represent, about what has happened at the meeting and any decisions that have been made which might be relevant to them.

LiverpoolSU Sabbaticals are asked to sit on over 50 meetings across LJMU alone, and several others locally, regionally and nationally. Over 20 of those that are LJMU meetings, are part of the official LJMU committee structure, which quality assurance states must have student representation.

9

Whilst we welcome being involved in such a large number of meetings, it can be a big stretch on resources, and cause us a number of logistical problems. In the first nine weeks of the first semester of the 2014/15 academic year, the President of LiverpoolSU alone spent over 200 out of 315 working hours either prepping for, or attending University meetings.

With the above in mind, providing Student Officers with a real and meaningful understanding about the development of academic governance and affairs and the role that students can bring to this is becoming increasingly more integral to the work of LiverpoolSU, particularly focussing on the function of University committees and the role that student representation can bring to this.

To be able to progress and develop at the speed in which we need to respond to student needs, we have recognised that our work needs to be directed by a specialised team of experts; and so in recent years we have invested resources to appropriately support these representatives, specifically through staff support.

In April 2015 we recruited a new, permanent staff role which prioritises this area of work with someone who has the specific skill to interpret University regulations

10

and practice and how they fit with the framework, as well as supporting the LiverpoolSU sabbatical team who attend meetings. Support in the main part is offered by providing the sabbaticals with evidence and sector wide context to assist and add to the views that they are gaining from conversations with students, through our MiniSU’s, every day; as well as briefings and de-briefings, so that we can not only effectively feed into meetings, but also ensure actions are taken, and students are aware of our input and impact.

This role is currently developing mechanisms to support the work that is carried out by the University to enhance the student experience through the student voice and allow us to meaningfully input to, and have impact through, LJMU’s committee structure.

In addition to this, this year we tabled a paper at Student Voice Committee in December 2014 which outlined the key difficulties that we faced and offered possible solutions, which we felt would enable us to be more effective.

Following that meeting the paper was referred to the Pro Vice Chancellor (Education) and the Associate Dean (Education) for EHC/Chair of the Student Engagement Panel, to work with LiverpoolSU to agree the route forward.

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

In June 2015 we received a formal response from the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Education); Associate Dean Education (EHC)/Chair of Student Engagement Panel; Faculty Registrar (EHC); and Head of Academic Quality.

We are currently in the process of responding to the University, so that we can work with them to ensure that any changes are made ahead of the new academic year starting. We are looking forward to being able to update the QAA when the QAA Review Team comes in as to how this has progressed and the impact it has had.

FACULTY STUDENT VOICE REPORTS (FSVRs) FSVRs were introduced by LiverpoolSU five years ago; since then many SU’s have followed suit and now these kind of reports are fairly common across the sector, albeit in slightly different formats. As you will see, we have referred to them as a reference of what students have been talking to us about year on year throughout almost every section of this report.

In January 2014 the University outlined a formal process via an email from the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Education) to the relevant senior staff in each Faculty, for these reports to be considered, which was: 1. Associate Deans (Quality) would receive the FSVR and be responsible for ensuring that approved action plans were produced; and monitoring progress against the FSVR Action Plans.

2. Associate Deans (Education), as part of the Faculty Education Committee, will be responsible for producing FSVR Action Plans for approval by Faculty Management Teams.

3. Faculty Management Teams would receive the relevant FSVR and associated Action Plan; the latter for approval.

4. Quality Assurance Enhancement Committee (QAEC) will receive the FSVR and their associated Action Plans. QAEC will also receive regular updates on progress against the Action Plans.

However, despite the implementation of Action Plans and formal Faculty responses, and some areas of change that we have seen as a result, we have faced a number of barriers to achieving notable change for students through these reports.

The FSVRs were not intended to be research reports but, in their simplest form, a write up of what students are telling us about their everyday experience. The aim was that this would be able to highlight areas of concern and initiate progressive conversations, along

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

with offering a number of recommendations for the issues faced by students across LJMU. However, when presenting the reports, sabbatical officers are regularly questioned and challenged on sample sizes, and often low sample sizes are used as a reason to dismiss what is being said.

In addition, recent research carried out by the Associate Dean (Education) for EHC recognised that although there was a perceived value of our reports because they afford a degree of independence from academic staff; the FSVRs were also the least trusted source of information for student feedback.

There was a further feeling from LJMU staff that the reports being produced at a Faculty level was not the best method for delivering the content, and that it could be misleading, because the student experience was seen to be based at programme level.

There was still a feeling from LJMU staff that a report of this kind could add significant value to the institution and the report recognised that providing reports at programme level was not feasible. As a result, recommendations were made that LiverpoolSU produce one annual Student Voice Report, that programme teams could use as part of their reflective practice.

However, the purpose of the reports are to act as biannual quality reports, which are more frequent and allow issues to be raised and dealt with in a more timely manner. Because students deal with different issues at different times of year, it meant that they would not have to wait until the end of an academic year to give their feedback from the first semester and that, in some cases, feedback could be dealt with within the same academic year. In addition, the introduction of these reports ensured that nothing raised by LiverpoolSU in the Higher Education Review was a surprise to the University.

To address these barriers and concerns, and to develop the reports further, we are working to link student comments to nationally recognised research reports such as the NSS to back up and further evidence student comments, however small the sample size.

You will see that we have done this for the first time throughout our Student Written Submission.

We recognise our own part in developing these reports to make them more impactful in the future and look forward to discussing our ideas for the new academic year with LJMU.

11

LIVERPOOLSU TOP TEN ACADEMIC PRIORITIES For the last two academic years, we have highlighted the ten key areas which students speak to us about most frequently as issues, to help aid the University to focus where to invest time for improvement.

Our Top Ten Academic Priorities outlines our commitment to Higher Education in the light of a fast changing landscape. Our priorities were chosen based on evidence gained from Faculty Student Voice Reports, and the consistency with which they came up across all faculties, and academic years.

The ten priorities for 2015/16, in no particular order, were: •

Teaching Quality

•

Placements

•

Assessment bunching

•

Timetabling

•

Personal Tutors

•

Group Work

•

Blackboard

•

Feedback

•

IT access and suitability

•

Communication

In March 2015, the Top Ten Academic Priorities were taken to LJMU’s Learning and Teaching Development Group (LTDG), to discuss how they could best be addressed. Whilst some action was agreed, much of the feedback centred around a lack of clarity on what was meant by the recommendations being made. Unfortunately, due to a clash of meetings, no LiverpoolSU representative was able to attend this LTDG, however it is hoped that with the aforementioned additional investment in sabbatical support at meetings, and the changes that LJMU have agreed to, we will not be in a position where no input is given again.

Since the introduction of the Top Ten Academic Priorities, it is disappointing that little actual change has been made as a direct result of the Top Ten Academic Priorities and so we have spent this summer reviewing how it can be more effective, taking into consideration feedback from the LTDG. Going forward, we will be presenting one priority per Faculty, chosen by students.

We will further work with the University more closely, to ensure that the recommendations are clear and understandable.

For the purpose of this report we have dedicated sections to teaching quality, placements, assessment bunching, personal tutors, group work, and feedback.

STUDENT CHARTER:

Reports have been produced to outline the detail and possible recommendations, in 2013/14 this went to Academic Board and in 2014/15 they became part of our FSVRs, which go through the Faculty level education and quality meetings.

We spent time in March 2015 talking to students and we asked a simple yes or no question to gauge awareness of the LJMU Student Charter. We asked students across all four faculties ‘Do you know what the LJMU Student Charter is?’

We received 789 responses to this question, and the results can be found below, broken down by year and Faculty.

Student Charter Awareness by faculty and by year

12

FACULTY

NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS

YES

NO

APS

363

17

346

EHC

87

12

75

SCS

277

21

256

FET

40

5

35

Undefined

22

6

16

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

YEAR

NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS

YES

NO

1

581

40

541

2

63

0

63

3

107

13

94

4

3

0

3

Undefined

35

8

27

In 2011, the Student Charter Group recognised that charters can be especially useful when introduced during induction for students but also for new members of staff. The group also noted that they should be used to emphasise the importance of belonging to a learning community and the importance of partnership between staff and students – so that, in focusing on rights and responsibilities, students will understand the need to develop effective working relationships.

With this in mind, the lack of awareness is a big concern, and serious consideration should go into how this is promoted to students in a meaningful way. The LJMU Student Charter has the potential to be a really exciting document, if it is well known and binding. LJMU needs to ensure that the Charter can be brought to life for students, and be able to confidently demonstrate how it impacts and makes a positive difference on their student experience.

For example, a few years ago, in response to a LiverpoolSU campaign, LJMU led a project on the removal of hidden course costs. Although this was agreed formally through the committee structure, there was no physical policy created, and we have heard of some instances where hidden course costs are still an issue. A statement in the Student Charter, which commits to no hidden course costs, would be a fantastic concrete promise from LJMU to the students.

We have been working with the University to review the Student Charter and we look forward to continuing this to develop it in to a document which sets out clear and tangible expectations of what being a student at LJMU is all about.

COURSE REPS: A Course Rep is a student volunteer who is elected/ selected for the role by the students on their course.

They act as a representative voice of students in their

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

year on their course, sitting on meetings with LJMU staff.

Course Reps are a vital mechanism within the representation structures as they can provide feedback on the experiences of students and can offer insight and opinion with a fresh and innovative perspective.

They are there to work closely with university staff to bring about positive, student-led change that will have impact both for their cohort and for future students of that programme.

LiverpoolSU currently supports over 1,100 Course Reps from LJMU, which is a number that has grown year-on-year. It is believed that the LiverpoolSU recommendation of having approximately 1 Course Rep to every 20 students (5%), which was disseminated this academic year, as well as developing relationships with LJMU administration staff has played a part in this increase.

We believe that the success of the Course Rep Scheme is dependent on a partnership approach between LiverpoolSU and LJMU, which is why we continue to include a dedicated section to the time and resources that we invest in our on-going development of this service as part of our FSVRs. To further aid this, at the beginning of the 2014/15 academic year LiverpoolSU set up a Course Rep Critical Friends group with LJMU staff to occur at least four times a year. These meetings are an opportunity to share our plans for Course Reps with various LJMU staff, which includes Associate Deans, Heads of Operation, Lecturers, and School Administrators. Going forward in the new academic year, we are also hoping to include Course Reps as part of this group.

For information, we have provided an overview of the support that we offer Course Reps throughout their time as a volunteer.

13

COURSE REP TRAINING: To broaden our reach, for the first time this year, LiverpoolSU ran several smaller training sessions across every campus, as opposed to the one full-day event we had previously held in a central location. This was in line with our Better Placed model, which aims to ensure that our services and opportunities are a lot more accessible to students.

Throughout October we ran six training sessions across LJMU. This was followed by a series of twelve mop up sessions, covering every Faculty throughout a two week period in November, to try and reach Course Reps that we had missed the first time round. These mop up sessions continued throughout January and February, resulting in a total of 379 Course Reps receiving training.

We appreciate and recognise the difficulties in being able to physically attend training, and that no matter what we do this will always be a barrier for some students. Going forward we have plans to explore the information that is available online, as well as the potential of online training. This will allow for any Course Reps who have missed the training to still be able to benefit, as well as Course Reps who will find physically attending training much harder such as distance learners and students in partnership colleges.

The activities/meetings they can gain points for are not extra requirements but those already expected of Course Reps. Examples of meetings/activities they can gain accreditation points for are: •

Attending Board of Study meetings

•

Attending basic training run by LiverpoolSU

•

Attending the new Course Rep Conference

•

Nominating in the Amazing Teaching Awards

Out of the 379 that attended, 201 Course Reps received accreditation. Course Reps were invited to attend the end of year Course Rep Awards night, where the Pro-Vice Chancellor (Education) was in attendance and the Course Reps were presented with their certificates by the Associate Dean (Education) from their relevant Faculty. The attendance of senior members of LJMU staff was well received by Course Reps, and demonstrated the importance of their role to both the Students’ Union and the University.

We hope that this scheme will contribute to improved student engagement in Board of Study meetings and generally with LJMU and LiverpoolSU and that it continues to grow and go from strength to strength.

Feedback from our previous training sessions shows us that Course Reps really enjoy and benefit from the chance to have face to face training and we want to ensure that we still look to offer that opportunity.

However, covering the more basic aspects via online provision will enable us to offer the most keen, enthusiastic, and engaged Course Reps the chance to have more advanced training and information, whilst still offering an essential level of support to all Course Reps.

Volunteering England also emphasise that thanking and recognising particularly committed or innovative volunteer contributions will help to maintain morale and ensure volunteers feel supported. In line with this, we have been working with the University to see the contribution of Course Reps reflected within Section Six of the Higher Education Achievement Report for future employers to recognise the skills and commitment these students give. This has been discussed in detail over the course of the last year and there is an agreement in principle that this is the correct way forward. It would be great to see this in place for students as soon as possible.

COURSE REP ACCREDITATION SCHEME:

COURSE REP CONFERENCE:

The most significant change that was made for this year was the introduction of the Course Rep Accreditation Scheme, enabling Course Reps to gain points for activities and meetings that are expected from the voluntary role.

For the first time, this year LiverpoolSU held a Course Rep Conference at the end of the first semester. This was a chance for the Course Reps in attendance to shape our work, including the recommendations made in this report, to learn about the upcoming Quality Audit, and our plans for the Student Written Submission. Also included in the conference was a session from LJMU around the work that is being carried out within Student Engagement.

Recognising and rewarding the work of our volunteers is important to us and LiverpoolSU are proud to have achieved Investors in Volunteers (IIV) status. The indicators for achieving IIV outline a commitment to volunteer recognition and we strongly believe that doing so successfully will equip LJMU with students who feel appreciated, supported, and more likely to not only continue in their role but to do so effectively.

14

Unfortunately, turnout was much lower than had hoped; however feedback from the Course Reps who attended was positive, and we look forward to developing this event further in the future.

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

questions were asked around the support that is offered by LiverpoolSU and what future improvements could be made to the services that Course Reps are offered. Finally the survey explored how Course Reps feel that LJMU responds to students’ feedback and how effective Course Reps felt that this was. In total, we received a total of 56 student responses.

COURSE REP EXPERIENCE: In March 2015, LiverpoolSU carried out an End of Year survey with all LJMU Course Reps. The survey wanted to identify how Course Reps felt that they are supported

by LJMU to ensure they can fully participate in the university’s formal feedback processes. In addition,

HAVING AN IMPACT We asked Course Reps ‘How effective do you feel that you have been as a Course Rep?’ They were asked to rate this from very effective through to very ineffective. It was really pleasing to see that 45 out of the 54 Course Reps who answered this question felt that they had either been very effective or effective in their role; only 2 Course Reps felt that they had been ineffective in their role.

We also asked Course Reps ‘How satisfied are you with the support that LiverpoolSU and the university/your course has provided for you within your role as a Course Rep?’ Please see the below table for the breakdown of numbers; Satisfaction with support for Course Reps

LIVERPOOLSU

LJMU

Very Unsatisfied

1

0

Unsatisfied

3

2

Neither Satisfied or Unsatisfied

7

6

Satisfied

17

21

Very Satisfied

16

13

These ratings were accompanied by qualitative comments, about ways in which support could be improved by either LiverpoolSU or LJMU. It was great to see that many Course Reps felt supported by LiverpoolSU and LJMU; be this via the training they received, receiving regular updates relating to their role, or having a course team which was helpful and supportive.

“Liverpool SU provided amazing training sessions and conferences to teach how to be good course rep. It helps a lot [and] our programme leader is so helpful and always support us” Yet there is always room for improvement and the Course Reps have identified two areas which LiverpoolSU is currently exploring for the coming

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

academic year: training and support which is tailored to postgraduates and facilitating opportunities for Course Reps to share good practice and socialise.

“As with everything in the University, I feel the postgraduate programs do not get a specific or main attention. I will be happy if some training is directed at the peculiarities of postgraduate student groups and needs” With regards to improved support from the university, this was predominately linked with the opportunity to be more involved in representing students in university decisions rather than hearing about the decision and raising the profile of the Course Rep role amongst the whole of the student body.

15

“Not often, but at times it can feel like certain issues will just be closed by staff members and the outcome is dictated to us” It would seem that where dissatisfaction occurred amongst Course Reps it was predominately through a lack of clarification as to what could/couldn’t be address at Boards of Study, and the support they expected, or would like to have received. It is important that LiverpoolSU and LJMU work in partnership to manage Course Reps expectations with regards to what is expected of them before they volunteer for the role and the support they will receive from LiverpoolSU and LJMU during their time as a Course Rep.

GIVING FEEDBACK: We asked Course Reps ‘Have you had the opportunity to feedback on the quality of your lectures at LJMU?’ and out of 45 responses, only 8 said no. From further analysis of the data, the same 8 individuals who responded no highlighted that they had been involved in giving feedback via Boards of Study or through university/course staff. This suggests potential confusion of the question, or lack of clarity around the purpose of a Board of Study and their role within it. Those who left comments highlighted that feedback on the quality of lectures was mainly through mechanisms such as module appraisals and Boards of Study. One students comment summed up the negative and positive aspects of these mechanisms: “The module appraisal survey is very useful for giving feedback on the lectures, however they only occur at the end of each module, meaning that nothing can be done to improve them for us. I feel that the board of studies meetings have been more useful in improving the quality of our day-to-day lectures” When asked about the ways in which they have been involved in giving feedback, responses overwhelmingly showed that the two key mechanisms to do this currently was via Boards of Study and through LJMU staff.

LISTENING TO STUDENTS LJMU conducts research with their students on an annual basis and a number of national research projects are also run with LJMU students. These include the LJMU Student Survey, UKES, NSS, and the PTES. In addition to this research, Boards of Study and module appraisals are used to gain student feedback as well as Inform Week which is an informal feedback process and discussion between students and lecturers which takes place throughout November.

16

We asked Course Reps ‘What could the university/ your course do to improve the ways in which it listens and responds to student feedback?’ Out of the 55 comments we received 13 Course Reps felt that there was no room for improvement as they had been listened to, supported throughout the year, and their feedback had been responded to well. Understandably, improvements were suggested where these areas fell down.

There were four main themes for improvement that were raised, which have been highlighted below: 1. Frequency of interactions with the course team: The feedback suggested that two Boards of Study a year is not sufficient, however this should not be taken to mean that Course Reps want more Boards of Study, but instead want more opportunities to engage with the team and course. Standardising Staff Student Liaison Committees may go some way to addressing this, although we are aware each Faculty might take a slightly different approach depending on the number and nature of their courses.

2. Support for gaining student feedback: Course Reps spoke about how difficult it can be to gain student feedback and expressed a desire to be supported in being able to do this. We expect our Course Reps to be representative and they are often, perhaps unfairly, criticised for not being. We should be supporting these students to be representative in as many ways as possible and ensuring Course Reps have the time and support to do this successfully.

The key way that students suggested that this should happen was through being allowed time in class to ask for feedback, as it was a time where the majority of students would be present and would recognise the Course Rep as a formal part of the lecture.

3. Response to feedback: Students also mentioned their perceptions about how the feedback they relay is responded to. A number of these comments suggested that students perceived that LJMU staff can become either very defensive or dismissive of their comments.

“Lecturers need to stop taking the feedback in B.o.S. meetings as personally as they do. I know I have encountered times when it seems the lecturers get defensive towards a point I have made as if I was being overly negative or the person who thought the point I made, and it made me feel a little attacked myself”

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

For students to honestly and openly be able to give feedback, it is important that they are put in an environment where they feel comfortable to do so.

LiverpoolSU works with Course Reps through training about the importance of depersonalising the feedback they give and ensuring that it is both accurate and balanced. It will be important for us to maintain and develop this area of training.

how to prepare for it, and ways to present feedback.

However, this is an area where there is certainly much room for improvement.

Some students suggested that anonymising feedback would be useful as well as providing a function to do this online. This may in part be because of the perception that their feedback is responded to negatively, which needs to be addressed, but would also be a useful development to ensure the student voice is accessible and representative. We are currently in conversation with LJMU about how this might be facilitated through tools already available to us on Blackboard.

CREATING CHANGE

4. Closing the feedback loop: Finally students commented on how feedback is acted upon and communicated to the rest of the student body: “I think a lot of the feedback the students give are taken in but never acted upon. The course/ university should evidence in their actions that they have listened to the students in making changes” It is important to remember that for many Course Reps the Boards of Study may be the first formal meeting they have attended, and even if this is not the case, the first time attending a meeting that they are not familiar with. LiverpoolSU covers Boards of Study in its basic training, providing an overview of what to expect,

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

In addition it is important that the topics, feedback, and solutions that occur within the meetings are shared amongst the rest of the students on the course and that the onus is not solely on the Course Rep to do this.

As part of the Course Rep Accreditation Scheme, for students to achieve Silver or Gold they need to provide evidence that they have helped create a positive change for the students on their course. A total of 19 Course Reps achieved these levels and through the End of Year Survey a further 27 Course Reps provided examples of changes they had made.

Changes ranged from class extensions being granted due to assessment bunching, addressing large class sizes, the weighting of future modules, and the variety of assessments that are offered, through to additional support being provided for PhD students.

“More group work and activities have been added to our course after myself and other course reps fed back to the lecturers in Board of Study meetings that students on our course felt more engaged during these and therefore, learned more effectively” It is great to hear about the positive impact the Course Rep system has had on the student experience and LiverpoolSU looks forward to working alongside LJMU to ensure that it continues to develop, and provide the best and most rewarding experience for students.

17

RCH A E S E R U M J L F O W REVIE Through the research which LJMU shared with us, ‘Assessment and Feedback’ and ‘Teaching on my Course’ were both highlighted as key issues for students, and are also areas that we have either recognised through our Top Ten Academic Priorities this year or on which we received a wealth of feedback via our GOATing activities, as such we have dedicated significant sections to them in this report.

OVERALL SATISFACTION WITH COURSE: Table 1 shows the ten courses that were highlighted in the analysis of the 2014 NSS results as the lowest

scoring. Compared to the LJMU Student Survey 2014, some of these courses received very different levels of satisfaction when feedback was provided by non-final year undergraduates, though this must be treated with a note of caution as the sample sizes are much lower.

It should be noted that the differing expectations of cohorts means that schools’ scores can change quite significantly from year to year. As this was taken by non-final year students, however, it may be suggested that these are more relevant for understanding issues of importance to current students.

Table 1

COURSE

OVERALL SATISFACTION % NSS 2014

OVERALL SATISFACTION LJMU STUDENT SURVEY 2014

RANKING LJMU STUDENT SURVEY 2014 (OF 126)

Media and Professional Studies

48%

Not included

Not included

Computer Animation and Visualisation

53%

25%

122

Forensic Psychology and Criminal Justice

60%

64%

98

Broadcast and Media Production

63%

88%

42

Tourism and Leisure Management

63%

82%

57

International Business Studies and Japanese

64%

Not included

Not included

Interior Design

68%

Not included

Not included

Nursing with Registered Nurse Status

69%

77%

75

Events Management

72%

52%

109

Drama

73%

75%

110

Table 2 shows the bottom ten courses which had sufficient responses in the LJMU Student Survey 2014.

Notably, Forensic Psychology and Criminal Justice, and Events Management appear in the lowest 10 courses in both NSS 2014 and the LJMU Student Survey 2014.

18

Though we have no current evidence of this, it is worth considering that the satisfaction scores here may be an indication of the key courses which drive lower satisfaction in the NSS results in the following years.

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

Table 2 COURSE

OVERALL SATISFACTION %

I.T. and Multimedia Computing

40%

Primary Education

41%

Events Management

52%

Criminology

62%

Film Studies

64%

Forensic Psychology and Criminal Justice

64%

Sport and Exercise Science

72%

History

73%

Human Resource Management

75%

Criminology and Psychology

75%

REASONS FOR LOW SATISFACTION:

Events Management

We looked through the wealth of free comments provided through this survey and have highlighted the key areas which students identify as the reasons for their dissatisfaction.

Positive comments for this course focused on the support available from lecturers, the engaging style of teaching, and the practical utility of the field trips for students’ understanding.

I.T. and Multimedia Computing

Events Management was also recognised through our Amazing Teaching Awards 2015 shortlist for Amazing Course Team, where students also spoke positively about the support offered by the staff on the course.

Positive experiences from students talked about support from both personal tutors and module tutors. Negative feedback from this course centred on the Advanced Web Development module and students’ perceiving programming to be too difficult. Other issues revolved around lack of support from teaching staff and lack of clear coursework guidance.

Primary Education Positive feedback on the course complimented the engaging style of teaching of some lecturers and the value of placements.

Negative comments focused on bad organisation of placements (including there being too few placements for the number of students), lack of support whilst on placement, and lack of communication on assignments.

Placements are another area identified within our Top Ten Academic Priorities for this year and we have expanded on this in more detail later in this report.

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

Negative responses revolved around issues with timetables (early starts, four hour lectures) and that their lectures are scheduled at IM Marsh, which does not have the proper facilities for the course.

Criminology Positive comments were low in number, however teaching and support delivered by staff was praised.

Negative comments highlighted dissatisfaction with the optional modules available and how these are presented, variability of teaching, and including too much or too little content.

19

Film Studies

Criminology and Psychology

Positive comments revolved around the teaching of certain lecturers and their ability to make subjects interesting and pass skills on to students.

Positive comments were low in number, however the support from personal tutors and the interesting nature of the subject was highlighted.

Negative responses highlighted the varying interest and relevance of some modules, lack of available facilities, and that students felt they were not listened to when giving feedback.

Negative responses highlighted difficulties in obtaining support and inefficient timetabling.

Forensic Psychology and Criminal Justice Positive remarks suggested that these students found the subject interesting and felt that staff offered good support and guidance.

POSTGRADUATE TAUGHT STUDENTS: The PTES provides insight into the issues which are important to postgraduate taught students. The following have been identified as overall issues for improvement: •

Workload of course being manageable

•

Courses running smoothly and being well organised

•

Encouragement to take part in decisions about how courses are run

Sport and Exercise Science

•

Amount of contact time between staff and students

Positive responses praised the use of guest speakers and the support available from lecturers and tutors.

•

Opportunities to give feedback on their experience.

Negative comments highlighted that teaching styles were sometimes unengaging and revolved around reading off PowerPoints, and a lack of consistency between course content and assessment content.

In terms of departmental differences, the Faculty of Education, Health and Community (EHC) and the Faculty of Science (SCS) had the lowest overall satisfaction. Issues of specific concern to these departments included:

Negative comments revolved around the teaching and support available from Psychology tutors and the lack of organisation for timetabling between the different departments.

History Positive remarks were based on the standard of teaching, which was made to be interesting and engaging, and the support provided by staff.

Negative comments highlighted that assessments are bunched together, the focus on group work, and that the subject is taught only by lectures. Complaints were made about the core modules, stating they were uninteresting.

•

EHC: Communicating course changes effectively.

•

SCS: Increasing confidence to be creative or innovative and levels of support available from staff.

The following sections outline the concerns of postgraduate taught students, as expressed through the PTES; this is done first overall and secondly broken down by department.

Human Resource Management Positive comments highlighted that teaching was interesting and engaging, and good levels of support were on offer.

Negative responses stated that assessments were closely bunched together, with guidance provided close to the deadlines, and feedback was unhelpful.

20

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

OVERALL EXPERIENCE: Both engagement, and organisation and management were identified as the overarching areas in the research which postgraduate taught students rated lowest; this

can be seen in the table below. Whereas ‘the workload on my course has been manageable’ and ‘the course is well organised and running smoothly’ are the areas with the lowest percent of agreement across the questionnaire.

Table 3

STATEMENT (BOTTOM 5)

% AGREED OR STRONGLY AGREED

The workload on my course has been manageable

68%

The course is well organised and is running smoothly

70%

I am encouraged to be involved in decisions about how my course is run

70%

There is sufficient contact time between staff and students to support effective learning

74%

I have appropriate opportunities to give feedback on my experience

75%

FACULTY DIFFERENCES: APSS had the highest overall satisfaction, compared to the EHC and SCS which had the lowest satisfaction.

Table 4

DEPARTMENT

OVERALL SATISFACTION %

Faculty of Arts, Professional and Social Studies (APS)

87%

Faculty of Technology and Environment (TAE)

81%

Faculty of Education, Health and Community (EHC)

80%

Faculty of Science (SCS)

80%

The table below shows the areas which each Faculty individually scored the lowest (N.B FET has been excluded due to low sample size). The areas which do not converge with the overall picture are coloured in dark blue. The department specific areas for improvement are based around: •

APSS: Feedback and support

•

EHC: Organisation

•

SCS: Support and skills development

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

21

Table 5

APS

EHC

SCS

I am happy with the support for I have appropriate opportunities my learning I receive from staff on to give feedback on my my course (78%) experience (73%)

My confidence to be innovative or creative has developed during my course (65%)

Feedback on my work has been prompt (77%)

Any changes in the course or teaching have been communicated effectively (72%)

I am happy with the support for my learning I receive from staff on my course (63%)

I am encouraged to be involved in decisions about how my course is run (75%)

I am encouraged to be involved in decisions about how my course is run (69%)

There is sufficient contact time between staff and students to support effective learning (62%)

The course is well organised and is running smoothly (75%)

The workload on my course has been manageable (64%)

I am encouraged to be involved in decisions about how my course is run (60%)

The workload on my course has been manageable (60%)

The course is well organised and is running smoothly (60%)

The workload on my course has been manageable (60%)

NSS 2015:

•

The results of the NSS have very recently been released

by Ipsos MORI and we have identified a few stand out highlights which we believe are worth of note and attention.

‘Assessment and feedback’ and ‘Q22 overall satisfaction’ have not improved, receiving the same result as in 2014 (75% and 85% respectively).

•

‘Teaching on my course’ and ‘Q22 overall satisfaction’ both scored lower than the national average.

•

A ‘big picture’ look at demographics highlights potential issues for the following groups, who are less likely to be satisfied across a number of NSS measures than other students:

Good news: •

LJMU results have continued to rise in 2015 since 2012 for ‘teaching on my course’, ‘academic support’, ‘organisation and management’, and ‘personal development’.

•

Results in the following areas were higher than the national average result; ‘assessment and feedback’, ‘academic support’, ‘organisation and management’, ‘learning resources’, and ‘personal development’.

Areas for attention: •

22

•

ENR, TPL, CMP, and LAW students.

•

Students with an ‘other’ disability (in particular with learning resources).

It is worth noting that we have been talking to LJMU about this through our FSVRs and we are working with them to take the appropriate action.

‘Assessment and feedback’ is the area in which LJMU is performing the least well, followed by ‘organisation and management’.

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

Scores over time and compared against national average Figure 2 shows each overall section results of the NSS survey, calculated as the average of each of the questions in that section, from 2012 to 2015. It also shows the national average result across each sector in 2015 so that a comparison can be made.

•

LJMU has received its highest results since 2012 for ‘teaching on my course’, ‘academic support’, ‘organisation and management’, and ‘personal development’.

•

‘Assessment and feedback’ and ‘Q22 overall satisfaction’ received the same results as 2014, at 75% and 85% respectively.

•

The following categories scored above the national average: ‘assessment and feedback’, ‘academic support’, ‘organisation and management’, ‘learning resources’, and ‘personal development’.

•

‘Teaching on my course’ and ‘Q22 overall satisfaction’ both scored 1 percentage point lower than the national average. For ‘Q22 overall satisfaction’ this is the same as in 2014, however this is an improvement of 1 percentage point for ‘teaching on my course’, which was 2 percentage points lower than the national average in 2014.

Figure 2 - NSS results for all overall sections from 2012-2015, including national average for 2015 NSS 2015 LJMU % agree for each category in NSS from 2012-2015 compared against the national average 90% 89% 88% 86% 83%

87% 86% 85% 84%

84% 82% 81% 80%

82% 81% 78% 74%

84% 83% 82% 81%

86% 85% 84% 83%

75% 74% 73%

LJMU 2015

64% 59% 58% 55%

LJMU 2014 LJMU 2013 LJMU 2012 England 2015

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

23

24

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

DBACK E E F D N A T N E M S S E A SS In March 2010, we produced a consultation document ‘10 ways for LJMU to make feedback better for students’2. We took this to LJMU’s Academic Board and won approval for four of our objectives; we then met with the University to discuss how to implement it.

By September 2010, the University had agreed to implement four of our objectives; •

Student assessment deadlines published alongside university feedback deadlines;

•

Feedback available three weeks after the assessment deadline;

•

Feedback directly relating to the assessment criteria;

•

Entitlement to face-to-face feedback on students’ first piece of assessed work.

Unfortunately, more recently Assessment and Feedback has, in line with national trends, consistently been the lowest score for the University in the National Student Survey from 2012-14. While there has been a slight increase in the scores for these questions in this period, the overall assessment and feedback score, after improving slightly in 2013, has stayed stagnant. It should be noted, however, that LJMU’s Assessment and Feedback score was 3% above the national average in 2014.

It is likely that, much like other areas of the student experience, what constitutes ‘good’ feedback and the expectations of what feedback should be between students and academics will differ. As such, this year LiverpoolSU intends to run a feedback campaign which focusses on finding out from students what they think makes impactful feedback and we look forward to sharing this and working in partnership with LJMU to ensure that feedback at LJMU meets the needs of both students and academics.

It seems clear that Assessment and Feedback should be an area of focus for improvement within the university, especially given the positive correlation which can be found between the scores for overall satisfaction, in question 22, and the Assessment and Feedback score for each course.

Given this, we decided to support the section in our SWS with a GOATing activity, to explore the issues in more depth, and with a hope to point towards some of the solutions.

The main two questions we asked students face to face looked into what they like and do not like about the ways they are assessed. We received responses from student across all schools and faculties and classified their responses in broader themes. The two charts below outline the responses we received.

Students’ dissatisfaction with Assessment and Feedback points particularly towards receiving detailed feedback and clarifying things they do not understand. Specific issues relating to feedback from the NSS 2014 open comments include the timeliness of feedback, the depth of feedback, and how students feel that it is sometimes unconstructive and contradictory, if they get any at all.

2 LiverpoolSU (2010), 10 ways for LJMU to make feedback better for students, Accessed Online: <http://issuu.com/s.tudor/docs/finaldraft_exprint>

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

25

What do you like about the ways you are assessed?

General Positive Statement 5%

Nothing Positive/No Comment 3%

Fair Marking 3% Timing 4% Variety of Assessment 28% Use of Technology 2%

Assessment Guidance and Support 12%

Practical/Placement/ Skills Assessment 8% Feedback and Assessment for learning 18% Type of Assessment 17%

What do you not like about the ways you are assessed?

Nothing Negative/No Comment 11% General Negative Statement 2%

Disagreement with marking criteria/ referencing differences 2% Assessment Bunching 12%

Practical Issues 5%

Group Work 9%

Feedback Quality & Timeliness 13%

Concerns about Impartial/Consistent Marking 4% Weighting of Assessments in the Course 6%

Type of Assessment 18%

Assessment Guidance & Support 18%

26

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

FEEDBACK AND ASSESSMENT FOR LEARNING As the Quality Code states, “[Assessment] forms an essential element of the learning process. Students learn both from assessment activities and from their interaction with staff about their performance in those activities.3” It is well documented that students are guided by the content of assessments to tactically discriminate in the focus of their reading and learning.

A particularly important part of this process is the role of feedback and how it impacts students’ personal development through the course.

The following areas were particularly prominent in the various student feedback mechanisms we used.

Feedback Timelines Question 7 of the NSS relating to promptness of feedback saw a small increase of 2% from 2013-14 but remains the fourth lowest scored question (of Q1-22).

This has been echoed in the Assessment GOATing exercise and has been a recurring theme in the FSVRs. While there has been improvement noted in a number of areas of the institution, feedback is still arriving too late to be of use to students in many courses.

“Feedback and deadline overlaps mean that you have to submit another assignment without having feedback.”

As the University agreed to implement a 15-day feedback turnaround policy in September 2010, it is worrying that this is still not being met in some areas.

In creating this policy LJMU stated that feedback is a crucial part of the developmental nature of assessments, prompt feedback is important to allow students to reflect and improve before their next deadline.

As our data only tells us this problem exists, and not its causes, or how widespread, we would like to do more work with the University on this in the future, to see how prominent of a problem it is, and identify the areas where the policy does not appear to be working in practice.

Feedback Quality There are similar levels of positive feedback and constructive criticism from students about feedback and often these comments correlate. Students told us they appreciate when feedback is detailed, constructive, and personalised for them.

“We get a lot of feedback that is very constructive- the tutors use the ‘what worked’, ‘what didn’t work’, and ‘what could you improve’ format for most assignments so we know how to improve.”

In our Assessment GOATing exercise, 13% of students raised issues with feedback quality as an area for improvement; similar issues have been a recurring issue in our FSVRs. Question 8 on the NSS (“I have received detailed comments on my work”) has been the second lowest score in the feedback questions for the past two years with only a 1% increase in 2014.

Student issues with feedback quality mainly relate to feedback not being detailed enough (especially where a mark is given with no written or verbal feedback) or feedback being generalised for a whole class and no individual feedback being given.

“Assessment feedback is very unhelpful. We are simply given the marks with no explanation and ways we could improve for next time.”

While it would be ideal for detailed feedback to be received for every piece of work, we recognise this is not always practical for smaller, formative assessments and it will have a number of resource implications for LJMU, and as such a need for investment. While detailed written feedback is desirable, we would suggest that face-to-face feedback discussions in tutorials are more effective.

Impactful Feedback While there will be ongoing discussion about what styles of feedback are most effective, and how this differs across courses, one thing on which all can agree is that all feedback should have a clear impact on students’ learning and development, and on their future assessments.

A QAA guide on assessment advises that feedback should “[demonstrate] explicitly what improvements could be made in a way that can be used in future assessment tasks to enable a better performance to be achieved.4” There is a worrying trend identified throughout many of our student feedback mechanisms where too few students are reporting that the feedback they receive is having a clear impact on their learning and future assignments.

QAA (2015), UK Quality Code for Higher Education, Chapter B6: Assessment of students and the Recognition of Prior Learning, Accessed Online: <http://www.qaa.ac.uk/assuring-standards-and-quality/the-quality-code/quality-code-part-b> 4 QAA (2012), Understanding assessment: its role in safeguarding academic standard and quality in higher education, pg. 13, Accessed Online: <http://www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/understanding-assessment.pdf> 3

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

27

In both 2013 and 2014, Question 9 of the NSS (“Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand”) has received the lowest score of Questions 1-22; getting 65% and 67% respectively.

This is mirrored in the LJMU Student Survey where the

equivalent question was the second lowest scored in 2012-13 and the lowest scored in 2011 and 2014. While the score for this question climbed from 60% to 63.7% from 2011-2013, it dropped down to 59.8% in 2014.

Assessment and feedback, percent who agreed and strongly agreed Source: LJMU Student Survey 2014 69% 72% 69%

Total ‘assessment and feedback’ attributes

74% 76% 74%

The criteria used in marking have been clear in advance

67%

Feedback on my work has been prompt

75% 74% 75% 77% 73%

Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair

67% 68% 65%

I have received detailed comments on my work

63% 64% 60%

Feedback on my work has helped me clarify things I did not understand 2012

2013

In the 2014 UKES, in answer to the question, “How often have you made significant changes to your work

2014

based on feedback?”, only 54% answered Often or Very Often.

How often have you made significant changes to your work based on feedback?

Source: UKES 2014

11%

35%

Very little

28

38%

Some

Quite a bit/Often

16%

Very much/Very often

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

Where feedback is not leading to students better understanding the subject or work, nor leading to students making changes to their work, we are concerned that the staff time spent creating it, is a waste of resources.

We are confident that solving this problem would allow students to bring their best efforts to bear on each assessment and to benefit from the full reflection and learning potential in each assessment.

Assessment Guidance and Support

“I don’t like the feedback we get as sometimes [it] doesn’t give me anything to improve on.”

This is not to suggest that staff spending much more time creating feedback which is far more detailed would solve this issue. Rather, we would suggest that greater work needs to be done to understand what makes feedback impactful and spread better practice across the institution.

Where students in our GOATing exercise identified positives aspects of Feedback and Assessment for Learning, it often praises how the feedback has been impactful on their development and future assessments. This also suggests that students are perhaps the best judges of whether feedback has been impactful.

“I like the fact we get feedback quite quickly and get comments on coursework to see where we’ve done good or bad and where we could improve.”

ASSESSMENT BUNCHING Students across all faculties and schools have been raising concerns, year on year, about assessment bunching and the impact this can cause. It is an issue that has been communicated in a number of previous FSVRs and was identified as one of our Top Ten Academic Priorities for this academic year.

In our Assessment GOATing exercise, students from every Faculty raised it as a negative issue and, overall, it was one of the most common issues raised by students. It is a particular problem among students on combined honours programmes.

“Over the three years there has been poor spacing out of assignments, there will be no assignments for a while before being given several in a short space of time.”

The QAA guide on assessment states that the timing of assessments should be carefully considered to ensure “that students feel they are able to bring their best efforts to bear on the assessment tasks and that treatment within and across programmes and disciplines is equitable.5”

Another issue raised by students is the quality of guidance and support given to them when preparing for assessments. This has been raised across all faculties in our 2013 and 2014 FSVRs. It was also rated as the joint top issue of things students do not like about the way they are assessed in our Assessment GOATing exercise.

We have received varied responses from the different faculties on prioritising this issue. One example of positive action is the response we received from APSS this year, which was, “School Directors to ensure that assignment advice is available in an appropriate form at the beginning of the teaching semester. This advice should be flagged in induction and transition meetings.

FEC recommend that all programmes consider the discussion of transparent assessment criteria and assessment preparation at programme meetings.

September 2015.6” We hope to see this implemented well in the APSS Faculty and, if well received by students, to see that practice spread across LJMU. Students noted how they can particularly struggle at the beginning of their course when they are unfamiliar with the type of assessment or studying. Throughout the course students have noted that they do not always understand the marking criteria.

“The part of coursework I don’t like is with being in first year I have never done some types of work before for example, written a scientific report.

So I think it’s silly to just expect students to know what one looks like, the expected structure and style and unknown to us but we still get marked on them.”

Research carried out into the first year student experience7 by QAA and NUS in 2011-12 concluded that students were very aware of the idea of independent learning when they came university.

However, they also identified a need for support and guidance into how do this effectively, especially in their first year as they have no previous experience from which to draw.

ibid, pg. 9 Faculty of Arts, Professional and Social Studies (March 2015), Faculty Student Voice Action Plan 7 National Union of Students (2012), Student Experience Research 2012, Part Four: First Year Experience.

Accessed Online: <http://www.nus.org.uk/PageFiles/12238/2012_NUS_QAA_First_Year.pdf> 5 6

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

29

It is also important that students fully understand by what criteria they are being judged in an assessment and what the marker is expecting of them. Often, marking criteria are written for the marker and is not accessible to students.

In the Assessment GOATing exercise, we asked 170 students whether they understand what is expected of them in assessments to achieve the marks that they want. 60% of students said they always understand what is expected of them while 24% indicated they sometimes do and at other times don’t (sometimes based on different tutors or modules). A worrying 17% said they never fully understand what they need to do in assessments Do you understand what is expected of you from your work, to achieve the marks you want?

No 17%

Sometimes 24%

Yes 59%

Where students mentioned assessment guidance and support as a positive issue, they praised tutors who give feedback on work before the final deadline and where they have been engaged with the marking criteria and fully understand what is expected of them.

GROUP WORK Over the past three years, LiverpoolSU has frequently received feedback from students about group work, which has been shared with LJMU through biannual FSVRs. Group work provokes a difference in opinion amongst students across LJMU; analysis of this information identified that many students enjoy the experience of working in a team to complete assessments, however fairness of marking is regularly raised as the main area of concern for students, which is impacted by the ways students work together.

Group work was identified in June 2013 as one of LiverpoolSU’s Top Ten Priorities, for the 2013/14 academic year. Based on student feedback we recommended that LJMU investigate group work practices across the university, providing guidance for

30

staff and students on how to address variations in team contributions, and investigate practices allowing for students to be individually marked.

Given the frequency with which students spoke to us about their concerns, we once again made Group Work one of our Top Ten Academic Priorities in 2014/15.

We recognise that group work can be a beneficial assessment tool, helping students to develop a range of transferable skills. However, it appears that more guidance needs to be offered to students surrounding the logistics and practicalities of working in a group successfully. Furthermore provisions need to be put in place for when contribution within the team is not evenly distributed.

LiverpoolSU are aware that members of LJMU Learning and Teaching Academy are exploring the option of online marking tools to address the concern of unfair marking, which is currently being trialled in 11 different modules, across 6 different courses, excluding the Faculty of Education, Health and Community. We look forward to hearing about and working with LJMU on the outcomes of this.

In March 2015, LiverpoolSU spoke to students with the aim of identifying areas of good practice across the university linked with students’ experiences of group work. During this time our staff spoke to 451 students from across all four faculties; we asked students to end the following sentence ‘My group work experience has been good because….’

In addition, we asked students whether they knew to whom they should go if they faced problems with group work. It was pleasing to see that of the 442 students who answered, 83% replied saying that they did know who they should go to. However, it was still concerning that a not insignificant 17% were not aware of where to seek support. These results were fairly consistent across all faculties except for Education, Health and Community which had closer results (Yes: 54%; No: 46%) but as the sample size was much smaller from this Faculty, this may be less accurate.

It is clear from our research over several years that there is no simple student position on group work – there are both positives and negatives.

POSITIVES OF GROUP WORK The overwhelming majority of responses from students to our question about the positives of group work focussed on how they helped with personal development. This includes developing teamwork skills, as well as learning skills from their peers.

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

“It has introduced me to new people and shown me how delegation must be used correctly in order to achieve an efficient outcome” “I have worked out how I work well and effectively for level 6” “Gives me the chance to develop skills people may have that can incorporate into mine” It seems that Group Work can help students both to develop skills that are useful in their academic development and to prepare them for the world of work (giving them valuable employability skills).

NEGATIVES OF GROUP WORK While students appreciate many of the developmental opportunities of Group Work, they face many practical obstacles in their experience of it.

One of the main issues is faced while actually carrying out the group work. Students often struggle working with their peers – especially when they feel some members of their group are not putting in sufficient effort. This can often lead to them spending time supporting or dealing with these colleagues rather than on their own share of the work. This leads to them feeling unable to present their best work and that this has an unfairly negative impact on their grades.

“Group projects never work; I don’t get along with my current group yet can’t move groups. This is affecting my grades.”

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

This issue is compounded by the perception that, in many cases, the final mark each student receives does not fairly represent their own input to the project. This leads to the feeling that they are being marked on other people’s work and that their grade is not a fair reflection of their attainment.

“I hate group work because we are all given the same mark” “There are issues with the marking of group projects as some students do not do adequate work yet get disparate marks” It must be noted here that the specific concern of unfair marking has not been raised within the Faculty of Education, Health and Community to LiverpoolSU’s knowledge, but that is not to say that its students do not experience challenges with group work.

This issue with marking is compounded by a lack of personalised feedback.

“More feedback on group work with individual breakdowns” Not only do students feel they are not graded on their own efforts but also that the feedback they receive does not identify their personal areas for development.

This also compounds the perception that they have not been marked on their individual work.

Some students have also commented that they feel both that group work assessments are used too much and that they are often weighted too highly within a module.

31

32

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

“Group work shouldn’t be such a large part of the final grade (60% last year)…”

Students see the main advantage of group work over other forms of assessment, as we explored above, is how it encourages the development of personal skills (both academic and employability). It follows, therefore, that unless the development of these skills is part of the learning outcomes for the module, group work is not usually the most effective way of assessing the learning outcomes. It should, therefore, normally be used carefully and sparingly, and should not carry a high assessment weighting for the module. It could be argued that group work would be better used in formative rather than summative assessment – as it can help students to prepare for assessments and introduces wider skills into the curriculum while avoiding any unnecessary negative impact on their grades.

A further argument for reducing the number of group work assessments used is that, given that effective marking and feedback of group work requires tutors to carefully differentiate between each member of the group’s work to provide individual marks and feedback, it creates a much larger resource burden on staff.

At the LTDG in March 2015, where Group Work was discussed as one of our Top Ten Academic Priorities, it was agreed to: •

make criteria for group assessment more explicit

•

better prepare students for groupwork in earlier stages of programmes and differentiate purpose and intent of group-based activities from learning how to work in a group through to assessing the outputs from group activities

In addition it was agreed that: •

the Teaching and Learning Academy would collate examples of good practice with contributions from LTDG members

•

based on these examples and other resources, guidance for Group Work is developed and this guidance should take account of arrangements for students with disabilities.

VARIETY AND TYPE OF ASSESSMENTS A common area on which students praise their course is on the variety of assessments available. This was raised by students from APSS, EHC, and SCS in the Winter 2014 FSVRs. This was also, by a significant margin, the top thing students liked about the ways they are assessed on our Assessment GOATing exercise (28%

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

of the overall responses). In the GOATing responses as broken down by Faculty, it was the top positive issue raised by students in APSS, EHC, and SCS. It is clear that this is something students both notice and appreciate where it is practised.

“I like the different ways we are assessed.

I struggle with the pressure of exams so knowing that I can be assessed on essays and presentations enables me to feel more confident.”

Students who value a variety of assessments do so because it ensures they get a chance to be assessed (at least some of the time) in a way in which they feel confident. Where students talk about both the positives and negatives of types of assessment, they show how they feel more confident in some kinds of assessment than in others.

“I do not like the rigidity of the assessments, having the option of doing A B or C would be nicer so if there was a format you didn’t like (eg. presentations) you could do something similar but in a format I’m more confident with.”

We recognise that sometimes the preference for students to have a say in the ways in which they are assessed can be because they want to be assessed in a way that allows them to perform their best; and so we also want to emphasise the importance of challenging students, where it will benefit the future employability of a student and, with the appropriate support, to develop in areas that they are perhaps not so confident in.

If students were able to be in a position where a choice could be offered, they should be encouraged to make this choice with advice from their tutor and to challenge themselves with other types of assessment where they are comfortable to do so. With appropriate support, this could serve to hugely benefit the future employability of students, as it would allow them to choose a method which would most assist their future career.

WE THINK THESE ARE GOOD EXAMPLES FROM OTHER PLACES: At the University College London Institute of Education, students are able to submit draft assignments and are asked to fill out a draft cover sheet where they highlight specific areas of feedback they would like. This is then returned in good time for the student to make amendments before the final submission deadline.

At the University for the Creative Arts, students are given formative feedback and an A-E indicative grade.

33

: PERSONAL TUTORS We are pleased that LJMU has a strong commitment to a personal tutoring system and has worked with us to create the Personal Tutoring Policy8 with reference to relevant NUS charters. We hope to keep working in partnership with LJMU to continually refine and improve this policy and its implementation.

Students want their personal tutors to be accessible both for face-to-face meetings and via email. Where students received swift responses to all emails, this was both noticed and appreciated. â&#x20AC;&#x153;Our tutors are always available and email us back whenever we need themâ&#x20AC;?

What students want: In 2015, we spoke to over 400 students from across all faculties about their experiences of personal tutoring and gained some valuable feedback. We found that students value four main virtues in their personal tutor: accessibility, consistency, knowledge, and relationship.

We asked students a more quantitative question about how often they would like to meet with their tutor.

How often would you like to meet your personal tutor?

Daily 0%

Never 1% Bi-monthly 6%

Weekly 21% Fortnightly 20%

Once a semester 15%

On Demand 13%

Monthly 24%

LJMU (2013), Personal Tutor Policy, Accessed Online: <https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/~/media/files/ljmu/ public-information-documents/academic-quality-and-regulations/academic-policy/personal-tutor-policy.pdf?la=en>

8

34

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

As can be seen from the graph, the responses to this question were fairly evenly spread showing that different students have different requirements. The current personal tutoring policy states that a minimum of two meetings per year are required, however it would be great to see personal tutors working with their students to determine the frequency of meetings based on each student’s needs. In addition, whilst it is encouraging that students speak positively about Personal Tutors ‘always’ being available, this is not manageable and may create unrealistic expectations that are hard for LJMU and its staff to live up to. As such, it would be a positive step forward for students’ expectations to be managed as to the maximum amount of time by when they should expect a reply.

Students value consistency in their personal tutor and based on the responses to our research we strongly endorse the personal tutoring policy where it states that students will normally remain with the same tutor until the end of level five and only change where it is considered more helpful for the dissertation supervisor (or equivalent) to assume this role. We also endorse the clause for students to be able to request a new tutor where they wish to.

Students also told us how important it is that their tutor is knowledgeable both about the subject area and about the student and their needs.

“My tutor this year has an in depth knowledge of the course which is good as she can answer any questions and queries I have…last year my personal tutor was from a different course completely and knew nothing about [the subject] which made it seem pointless having a personal tutor in the first place...”

Finally, it is important that a rapport and strong personal relationship is built between student and tutor, especially so students are able to talk to them about personal problems they may face.

“They were there last year through personal issues; I don’t feel I would have been able to get through the year without their support.”

The QAA Code Part B49 expects institutions to provide support to students with a focus on times of transition during their course (such as induction, between years, and other times of change). It is crucial that students trust their tutors and that the tutor knows the students’

academic background and progress to allow them to provide appropriate and effective advice. The ultimate goal of this relationship should be to empower the student to make wise choices so as to reach their academic potential on their course.

Training and Support The third recommendation in the NUS Charter on Personal Tutors10 states that “staff should be given full training on being an effective personal tutor.” There is currently no requirement for staff to be trained or supported specifically in executing their role as a personal tutor in the LJMU Personal Tutoring Policy.

We believe this is leading to some specific issues for students while also risking more serious problems occurring in the future.

One example of where this is causing a problem for some students has been brought to our attention by the LiverpoolSU advice centre. While staff are expected, under section 8 of the Personal Tutoring Policy, to “Remain informed about LJMU procedures and policies, in particular the Academic Framework and Assessment Regulations such that the Personal Tutor can give accurate information and advice to students”, it is clear that this is not being consistently realised.

A small but significant number of cases are regularly coming to our advice centre where a student is in a difficult academic situation due to being misadvised by their personal tutor. This is especially common around extenuating circumstances where students are given the wrong form to submit or, in some cases, are told they can make an academic appeal on the grounds of extenuating circumstances. It is also important when giving academic advice that staff consider when a students’ problem presents them with a conflict of interest as an employee of the university and, in this case, students should be immediately referred to the LiverpoolSU advice centre.

To help rectify these issues, we believe that all staff who act as personal tutors should be fully trained in carrying out this role and the University should ensure that all tutors are fully up to date on the academic policies of the University and the various support that is available to students. We would further like to see supplementary training offered to staff around particular student issues – such as supporting students with mental health problems and being sensitive to the different cultural backgrounds of students. We look forward to sharing these ideas with LJMU through the Personal Tutor Working Group of which we will be a part next year.

QAA (2013), UK Quality Code for Higher Education - Chapter B4: Enabling student development and achievement, Accessed Online: <http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/uk-quality-code-for-higher-education-chapter-b4enabling-student-development-and-achievement#.VcSPcKNwaUk> 10 NUS (2011), NUS Charter on Personal Tutors, Accessed Online: <http://www.worc.ac.uk/academictutor/documents/NUS_ PersTut_Charter_web.pdf> 9

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

35

PL ACEMENTS: Placements are an invaluable experience and, for many students, an essential part of their university course.

Yet it can be a stressful time when preparing for and whilst out on placement. ‘The Professionals: Students on Placement - 2011’ report by NUS highlighted that this is an area that affects student on a national level.

It was noted that although the stresses of placement can exacerbate issues, in a number of cases these are issues with the placement that can be addressed, such as ‘a lack of information and preparation time beforehand’11.

The NUS research highlighted that ‘when the communication flow breaks down things can go wrong quickly. The challenge is trying to manage this flow between three different bodies – the institution, the student and the placement’12.

This is also recognised through surveys such as the NSS, where the availability of information prior to placement has been illustrated as an ongoing area of concern on a national level. When students are asked ‘I received sufficient preparatory information prior to my placement(s)’ the results have remained within the 70-79% bracket. Admittedly this is an area which is improving year on year - National average NSS; 2011 = 73%, 2012 = 74%, 2013 = 76%, 2014 = 77%.

However in comparison with the other 5 questions which are asked regarding placement experience, all others are 80% or higher. This is also reflected locally, the LJMU 2013-14 NSS results for NHS funded courses showed that when students were asked ‘I received sufficient preparatory information prior to my placement(s)’ only 60% agreed. This is 9% down from 2012-13 and 17% below the national average.

•

Timing of placements

•

Support whilst on placement

Given the size of placements as an issue, to enable us to use our resources most effectively, in November 2014, we asked students to identify their biggest issue, which they would like us to tackle first, and with most urgency. 442 students out of 905 students who participated in this activity voted for ‘Availability of information prior to placement’ to be LiverpoolSU’s number one priority for placements. Through this process, 301 students also left comments about their experiences of placements at LJMU. Responding to this, LiverpoolSU recommended13 that LJMU ‘Create an expectations agreement, which is set up between LJMU and placement providers, and one between students and staff’, so that student expectations, around things such as when they would receive information, could be managed.

In August 2014 LJMU introduced the Placement Learning Code of Practice. This was for a variety of reasons including; safeguarding students, QAA compliance, and ensuring there is a universal reference point for all staff and students.

The Placement Learning Code of Practice includes an agreement which outlines the expectations of the student and what the Placement Learning Provider and LJMU University will do. In addition, there is a ‘Students Rights’ section and ‘Essential Information to be provided to the Students including their responsibilities’ section.

Over the past three years, LiverpoolSU have received frequent feedback on placements, which has been shared with LJMU through bi-annual FSVRs, and this year was made one of our Top Ten Academic Priorities.

Analysis of this information identified that the top four most talked about issues surrounding placements at LJMU were;

Since the recommendation was put forward, LiverpoolSU have been part of the Placement Learning Code of Practice Review group, which took place in April 2015, and spoke to more LJMU placement students to further our understanding of what specific information they want to be provided with.

•

Availability of information prior to placement

•

Expectations of placements

Following the analysis of this data, it is evident that the availability of information prior to placements is not just specific to the placement they are allocated, but

11 National Union of Students (2011), The Professionals: Students on Placement, Accessed Online: <http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/resourcehandler/ecf1090e-aa5a-4bf7-9cdc-9cfafa7c3994/> 12 ibid 13 LiverpoolSU (2014), All FSVRs, December 2014.

36

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

the experience of placement as a whole. It is an area where student’s expectations need to be managed effectively, informing students of what and when they can expect to receive information. We are aware that the practice lead within the School of Nursing and Allied Health is exploring a similar option, and we are hoping to provide relevant findings to ensure it is a successful venture. However, we believe that this should be standard practice across LJMU, as guidance on what they can expect/what they can prepare for would be a useful document for all students. This guidance should be made accessible to students from the beginning of their university journey. Ensuring this is carried out efficiently will help to alleviate any anxiety or dissatisfaction for the students attending the placement and ultimately help to enable them to be the best ambassadors for LJMU that they can be.

Because the nature of placements can be so different in each discipline, we have broken the data down by faulty.

Arts, Professional and Social Studies We spoke to 48 students from APSS, which covered all five schools. Level 4/5 students talked about being aware that they had the opportunity to go out on placement in Level 5/6. Yet many spoke about wanting more information available before they progressed to the next level. This was for a variety of reasons; types of placement, more time to look for a placement, uncertainty, and to create more excitement about the course.

“Slightly disappointed we haven’t been spoken to about the different placements we can get involved with. If we had been spoken to about this, I think a lot more people would be engaged and excited about the course” It is understandable that staff do not wish to bombard students with information they may not need until they have progressed to the relevant year/module, and the feedback from students has illustrated that once they reach this level, they receive the information and support they require.

Yet there appears to be no disadvantage for students to have access to the placement requirements prior to starting the relevant module, particularly when the onus will be on the student to locate their own placement.

Science We spoke to 118 students from SCS, which covered all three schools. Students spoke about there being a lot of emphasis placed on the importance of placements

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

from their lecturers, which was great to hear. However following this positive discourse, there appeared to be inconsistencies with the information and support students received in order to explore the possibility of undertaking a placement.

“First year they are told it is advisable to do a sandwich placement year after second year but no details on how to prepare themselves for this; not much info prior to placements at all. No information on summer placements etc.”

As mentioned previously it is possible that providing all this information before students reach the relevant module/level, could be seen as a bombardment of information. Yet with such an encouraging nature surrounding placements within this Faculty, this positive rhetoric has understandably created enthusiasm amongst the students to be pro-active. It would appear beneficial to allow student access to information that would allow them to prepare for placements and enable them to make an informed choice on placement options.

In addition the mention of summer placements cropped up across all three schools. LiverpoolSU are aware that due to resources and health and safety regulations it is difficult to support students with summer placements.

However as some students wish to partake in additional placements, or do them as an alternative outside university hours, information on summer placements should also be made available to students.

Engineering and Technology We spoke to 70 students from EAT, which covered all three schools. Many of the students that were spoken to talked about their experiences of sandwich placements. It was clear that information regarding the requirements and process of applying for a placement, alongside support from LJMU staff was essential in managing expectations. Yet as a sandwich year can be a big commitment for students, when information or support was lacking it inevitably had a negative impact on student’s experience, and in some cases deterred students from taking the opportunity to go on placement.

“I don’t feel I get enough support from lecturers, would like to see more communication between lecturers and students on available placements in our field” Examples of good practice within the Faculty are evident, and students would benefit from this being shared between courses and schools. Students spoke about the competitiveness within their chosen subjects; due to this LJMU should be doing all it can to ensure

37

their students have the best chance to secure these placements. One way of doing this is providing students with information on previous placement providers, what support they can expect to receive and what is expected of them to secure a placement.

Education, Health and Community Due to the nature of the courses within EHC, and the high number of courses with statutory placements, there is information regarding this topic, which back dates over a three year period. This section and the next will predominately focus on the feedback received this academic year, but will make reference to previous student comments to illustrate historical context surrounding placements.

58 students from EHC provided LiverpoolSU with qualitative responses when asked about what they would pick as their placement priority. This feedback was representative of all three schools, and the Centre of Public Health. Once again, the most talked about topic was the availability of information prior to placements. This varied amongst students as some focused around the specific information that related to their own placement, whilst others talked about being prepared for placement more generally.

“Will go on placement for two weeks next year but haven’t been given a lot of information about it. Placements are arranged by the university which they feel takes the pressure off trying to find one. At this point the students don’t feel adequately prepared to go on placement though” “We’re due on placement in a couple of weeks and still haven’t got our uniforms or details of our placements. This has made planning childcare and arranging part time work commitments very difficult” Student comments indicated that information on the criteria which makes a provider a suitable placement and/or list of previous placement providers that students have used, would be a useful resource for students. This was predominately, but not exclusively, raised by students who do not require statutory placements, and have the option to find their own placement.

This lack of information regarding suitable placement requirements has been raised previously; “More information about placement year during first year so we had more time to prepare and look into all the different option”

38

Therefore illustrating this is an area that students time and time again have concerns over, so by providing a guidance document this can help alleviate some of the worry.

Availability of information prior to placement Following the selection of the placement priority, we wanted to talk to students specifically about what specific information they want to be provided with.

In order to provide the review group with more specifics surrounding the availability of information prior to placements, we collected information from 39 Midwifery students, asking them ‘What information should the university make available to you before you go out on placement?’

In addition, as there was a new intake of Nursing and Paramedic students in March and April this year, we took the opportunity to find out their expectations of placements before their first experience. We asked 73 new students ‘What three pieces of information would you expect to have been made available to you before you go on placement?’

When we combined the feedback results from the 112 students from statutory placement courses; Nursing, Midwifery and Paramedic Practices, we found that students identified 8 areas they expected/should receive, with the top three choices being; support, shift patterns and location/travel information.

•

Shift Patterns – 68

•

Support – 56

•

Location/Travel Information – 53

•

Learning Outcomes/Expectations – 23

•

Type of Placements – 20

•

Uniform – 16

•

Timetable – 12

•

Peer Support/Review – 6

Support Students specified that they wanted contact information for their key contact(s) to include; name, number, and who should be contacted (and when) about certain issues. In addition, feedback that linked to support was predominately focused on what support students could expect from LJMU staff and placement providers, whilst on placement.

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

Shift Patterns The information students want to know before they go out on placement, in relation to shift patterns are; how many hours they are required to work, when this will be, receiving work rotas in advance, how overtime works, and off duty processes.

Location/Travel Information Location and travel information have been grouped together, as one cannot be determined without the other. This was the most popular requirement raised by statutory placement students who have prior experience of going out on placement. Students would like to find the following information for each placement; •

Placement location

•

Transport options

•

Car Parking facilities

•

Directions

•

Travel costs

•

Reimbursement process

Ideally this could all be found in one place so that, once a placement has been assigned, students can find this information quickly. This request for information surrounding placements has been raised time and time again through our FSVRs.

This would save students the additional time and pressure of researching this information themselves, particularly when placements can be allocated within a short time frame and when students have additional commitments to organise around placement.

With so many of the placements offered at LJMU coming with significant cost to students, we think it is paramount that these areas are addressed. From our work on this in the last academic year, we are aware of initiatives that are currently being developed in the University. For example, Nursing and Allied Health are in the process of creating a physical handbook for students, which will provide students with details about location of trusts/wards and in most instances information about parking, and links to google maps so that students are able to look into travel distances. We look forward to talking to students in the new academic year to see how this has been received.

We think this is a good example from another place: Plymouth University have put together an expectations document14 for Nursing and Midwifery students, which answers some of the questions that students may already have about their placement experience. They then provide advance information on all aspects of students’ placements in their taught sessions before they attend their first placement.

“The lack of organisation with regards to placements. I need to know in advance where I am going to be placed because I am a mature student and work part time. Not knowing makes it hard for me”

14 Nursing and Midwifery, Plymouth University (2014), First Year Nursing and Midwifery Year 1 Introduction to Placements.

Accessed Online: <https://www.plymouth.ac.uk/uploads/production/document/path/2/2269/First_year_nursing_and_midwifery_ Year_1_introduction_to_placements.pdf>

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

39

: Y IT L A U Q G IN H C A E T Excellence in teaching is something that we believe is fundamental to a positive student experience at University; which is supported by various pieces of research which have shown that this is the area within the NSS that most significantly impacts a students response to question 22, about their overall satisfaction.

Given this, we welcomed LJMU recognising it as a priority for 2014/15.

We further welcome LJMU’s emphasis on sharing good practice through teaching observations and staff participation in the HEA. Students in past FSVRs have provided a wealth of feedback on how academics successfully and unsuccessfully engage them during lectures. Previous FSVRs have highlighted engaging students, staff student ratios, and contact time as issues for them.

It was hugely encouraging to see, in 2012, LJMU launching a major recruitment campaign, with 43 new staff appointed at a time when other universities were making redundancies. Improving staff student ratios was a key driver for the campaign, and all new staff,

irrespective of seniority, were expected to be actively involved in teaching and impact positively on the student experience.

Unfortunately, teaching on students’ course was another area that was confirmed to be a substantial issue for students in the University research. Issues with the content of learning arose from the UKES research, including high levels of memorising information forming part of students’ courses. Specific issues from the open comments included an overreliance on PowerPoint, lecturers lacking teaching skills, and irrelevant content.

Teaching on my course also follows the trend seen in assessment and feedback as there were clear improvements in 2013 but a decline in 2014. The two areas which saw greatest dissatisfaction are the course being intellectually stimulating and staff making the subject interesting. In contrast with the ratings remaining relatively stable, however, staff making the subject interesting has seen a marked decline between 2012 and 2014.

Teaching on my course, percent who agreed and strongly agreed.

Source: LJMU Student Survey 2014 78% 81% 77%

Total ‘teaching’ attributes

83% 85% 83%

Staff are good at explaining things 72%

Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching

76% 79% 74%

The course is intellectually stimulating

Staff have made the subject interesting 71% 2012

40

84% 81%

2013

76%

82%

2014

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

The UKES research asks students what their course requires of them in terms of learning. As shown in Figure 4, 64% of students feel that their course requires them to memorise course material quite a bit or very much, which may contribute to feeling that the course is not intellectually stimulating and that it has not been made interesting.

Further, roughly a quarter of students feel that they have very little or some experience in their course of: forming a new understanding of various pieces of information (22%), applying facts, theories or methods to practical situations (24%), evaluating or judging a point of view, decision, or information source (28%), and analysing ideas or theories in depth by examining their parts (28%). This may also contribute to students feeling that their course is not intellectually stimulating.

During the current academic year, how much has your coursework emphasized the following activities?

Source: UKES 2014 Forming a new understanding from various pieces of information

6%

16%

42%

Applying facts, theories, or methods to practical problems or new situations

5%

19%

41%

Evaluating or judging a point of view, decision, or information source

9%

19%

Analysing ideas or theories in depth by examining their parts

7%

21%

Memorising course material

8%

Very little

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

35%

40%

32%

43%

28% Some

35%

Quite a bit

29%

46%

18%

Very much

41

The NSS tells a similar tale, when looking at a breakdown of students’ answers for ‘The teaching on my course’ and the individual questions in this section including those who answered ‘not applicable’. ‘Staff

are good at explaining things’ received the highest score in this section with 89% agreeing and ‘staff have made the subject interesting’ received the lowest with 80% of students agreeing.

NSS 2014 LJMU The teaching on my course

2% 5% 9%

The teaching on my course

49%

35%

1% 1. Staff are good at explaining things

4% 6%

60%

29%

2% 2. Staff have made the subject interesting

6%

11%

52%

28%

1% 3. Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching

4% 9%

43%

44%

2% 4. The course is intellectually stimulating

5% 10%

43%

40%

Not Applicable Count

Definitely Disagree Count

Mostly Disagree Count

Neither Count

Mostly Agree Count

Definitely Agree Count

In 2012, 2013, and 2014 LJMU fell 2% behind the national average. This year the LJMU score was 85% compared to a national average of 87%.

NSS 2014 LJMU vs national average for all HEIs for ‘Teaching on my course’ 87%

87% 86%

85%

85% 84%

LJMU: The teaching on my course

National average: The teaching on my course 2014

42

2013

2012

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

The open comments from the NSS 2014 support the view that some students feel their course is not intellectually stimulating and that it has not been made interesting. The main issues students said about this include: Death by PowerPoint: Students had concerns with some of their lecturers as their teaching consisted of reading to them from PowerPoint. Notably, many students felt this showed a lack of enthusiasm on staff’s part, meaning they were unable to be enthused by the subject themselves.

Not good at teaching: Some lecturers were criticised for being unable to relay information to students; though students recognised they were knowledgeable in their subject, they felt their teaching skills were lacking.

Irrelevant: Some students felt that the course content itself was irrelevant, meaning they were less engaged with the subject.

It’s not intellectually stimulating because of the teaching: Notably, many of the students who spoke about their course not being intellectually stimulating attributed this to teaching styles.

Recent NUS and QAA research15 has identified that students consider teaching skills the most important feature of good quality learning and teaching. Students consistently talk about wanting more interactive classes, not only to learn, but also to develop peer relationships which they linked to future employability skills.

The research shows us that, when thinking about the learning and teaching experience at University, lecturers’ teaching skills were by far seen as the most important. Around 90% of students rated this as important or very important.

The next most important factors nationally were interactive group teaching sessions and tutorials, and library support. Of least importance was the availability of internet discussion forums.

Smaller groups, seminars, practicals, and interactivity were all highlighted as something respondents

wanted more of. This is reflected locally through our Teaching Awards, where student nominations talk about lecturers who are interesting, well informed, and passionate. Students love the use of technology and resources and they highly rate staff who are helpful.

They tell us about staff who apply their lectures to real life and use examples to ignite student interest.

This was also highlighted in the June 2013 Top Ten Academic Priorities Paper, where feedback indicated that students appreciate seminars and small group learning and given the choice would prefer either more seminars, more seminar-style lectures, or just better staff student ratios.

Students tell us that they liked interactive and engaging teaching and teachers who were enthusiastic, approachable, and good communicators. Students talk passionately about the need for learning to be interesting and dynamic. Students talked to us about their desire to be involved, how they disliked just being talked at, and that they wanted more from a lecture than just being given a handout. They also wanted the opportunity to express their opinions, hear the views of other students, and discuss different interpretations.

The concern around the number of students per lecture and seminar was raised as a University wide issue in the December 2013 FSVR. In August 2013, QAA released guidance about explaining class sizes to students16, in light of their findings that 70% of students surveyed linked the size of the class with a high quality learning experience. This was ranked as third most important below teaching skills (91%) and interactive group sessions (83%), and as such it is important to address all areas and not improve one at the expense of another.

In the guidance provided by the QAA, they outline that when publishing information for students, the University should consider: •

Presenting class size as an aspect of the collective delivery methods for a specific course

•

Stating the ways in which teaching and learning are facilitated, and by whom

•

Specifying in pre-entry course information, how effective learning is supported by sufficient provision of specialist resources, suitable class sizes, and the availability of resources

15 National Union of Students (2012), Student Experience Research 2012, Part One: Teaching and Learning. Accessed Online: <http://www.qaa.ac.uk/publications/information-and-guidance/publication?PubID=225#.VXchV_Bgiqg> 16 QAA (2013), Explaining class size: Guidance about providing information for students. Accessed Online: <http://www.qaa.ac.uk/ publications/information-and-guidance/publication?PubID=74#.VXciIfBgiqh>

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

43

The responses also illustrated that good communication skills, enthusiasm, and dynamic delivery are a vital part of excellent teaching. Students spoke about humour, compassion and patience, and the desire to be treated like an adult. Approachability of teachers featured heavily in responses. Students expressed a desire to feel comfortable talking to their lecturers about additional support or queries.

We think this is a good example from another place: Manchester Metropolitan Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Centre of Learning and Teaching use previous winners of the

44

Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Union Student Led Teaching Awards, to spread best practice across the University; http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/good_practice/ gpentry.php?id=46 They also provide dedicated web space on lectures and lecturing, which includes answers to frequently asked questions, guidance from sector experts and practical tips that their academics are encouraged to try; http://www.celt.mmu.ac.uk/lectures/

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

: S T N E D U T S L A N IO T INTERNA International Students are an important part of the Liverpool John Moores community, making up just over 10% of the student body. We are pleased to note that the university’s international strategy includes the objective to increase this to 15% and look forward to helping make this a reality.

In considering the International Student experience at LJMU, we share the principles expressed in the QAA guide on this area that “international students are an important asset for UK higher education providers, and that with the right initiatives in place they can contribute to the development of intercultural competencies among the whole student body, as well as that of academic and support staff, and can help create intercultural environments that enable all staff, students, and providers to broaden their perspectives.”17

Improving the experience of International Students, especially with regards to Academic Quality, is an area in which we are proud to be working in partnership with the university. We are confident that we share the goal to continually improve this and to provide a sector leading experience for these students. In 201415, LiverpoolSU implemented a pilot research project on International Students focussing on three areas including the Learning Experience; research we are hoping to develop and build upon with LJMU. Our research mirrored the results of the 2014 NSS in showing that the two main areas of concern for International Students as compared to the institutional results were Teaching on my Course, and Assessment and Feedback.

National Student Survey (NSS) result for LJMU

INTERNATIONAL

LJMU TOTAL

DIFFERENCE

Teaching on my course

76

85

-9

Assessment & Feedback

67

75

-8

Academic Support

80

82

-2

Organisation and Management

77

81

-4

Learning Resources

89

90

-1

Personal Development

84

83

+2

Overall Satisfaction

82

85

-3

Particularly worrying scores in these sections were for “Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching” which was 12 points lower for International Students than the LJMU total and “Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair” which was 18 points lower than the LJMU total. Analysis of this data also shows a very strong positive correlation between the International Students and LJMU Total scored, meaning that these low scores are having a significant negative impact on LJMU’s overall NSS results. Action on these areas could, therefore, make a marked improvement in the institution’s NSS results and should be an area of priority.

As this is a continuing area of partnership work for LiverpoolSU and LJMU, we do not make any specific recommendations in this submission. However, a solution to the challenges explored in this section can be created behind the scenes and it is crucial that LiverpoolSU and LJMU work with International Students to resolve this effectively.

17 QAA (2015), Supporting and Enhancing the Experience of International Students in the UK, Accessed Online: <http:// www.qaa.ac.uk/en/Publications/Documents/International-Students-Guide-15.pdf>

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

45

: S L A E P P A D N A S T COMPL AIN Liverpool SU Advice Service offers students of LJMU free, confidential, and independent advice. We have one full time and one part year adviser who are extensively trained and experienced in delivering academic advice to students. We aim to support students to make their own informed choices and to do this a friendly and professional environment.

LiverpoolSU Advice Service contact information is included in LJMU outcome letters and transcripts as well as being mentioned in LJMU regulations and policies.

We have highlighted below the key areas that we have dealt with this year and provided some context as to how this has caused issues for students.

Grounds for Appeal At LJMU the regulations state that there are 3 grounds for an appeal that will only be accepted if; •

there has been a material administrative error,

•

the assessment, in whatever format, was not conducted in accordance with the current regulations,

•

some other material irregularity has occurred.

LJMU currently provide an ‘Academic Appeals and Misconduct Appeals – Information and Guidance for Students’ document18 for students, however it seems that this is still causing some confusion amongst students.

When our adviser’s speak to students regarding these grounds for an appeal they often find that they do not understand what they mean and need clarification.

We have had a number of students who have come to us believing that they are able to appeal on grounds of mitigating circumstances, after they have been told by academic staff that this is the case. This provides the student with false hope that their appeal could be

upheld and their problem rectified. Once they have contacted our advisers it is then made clear to the student what the grounds for an appeal are and that the student does not have any clear grounds. This leaves the student feeling stressed and confused as to why their tutor has told them they could appeal on mitigating circumstances.

When the assessment board releases results we receive a high proportion of calls from students wishing to appeal their grade. A number of students wish to appeal their grade because they do not agree with the mark that they have been given and that they would like their work to be re-marked.

Some students that submit an academic appeal do not realise if their appeal is upheld that they could have to re-submit the affected assessment or exam at the next assessment opportunity, or that the grade won’t be finalised until the next assessment board opportunity which could cause implications for students in their final year as this could delay their graduation. Some of these students decide that they do not wish to proceed with the academic appeals procedure once they have found out this information.

Complaints Students who contact the Advice Service wishing to make a complaint are more likely to make a complaint through the local resolution stage. This is the first stage in the complaints procedure before the formal stage.

We find that there are a small number of students that do not wish to make a complaint as they feel that making a formal complaint to the university will impact on their academic studies and their tutor will mark their work down and disadvantage them.

With formal complaints LJMU only looks into incidents that have happened in the last 3 months. We find that a number of students wishing to make complaint are not within the deadlines that have been set.

LJMU, Academic Appeals and Misconduct Appeals – Information and Guidance for Students. Accessed Online: <https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/~/media/files/ljmu/public-information-documents/student-regulations/appeals-and-complaints/ academic-appeals-guidance-notes-updated.pdf?la=en>

18

46

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

Extenuating Circumstances and Deferred Considerations The extenuating circumstances procedure is in place for students that have been affected by an unforeseeable and unexpected incident close to their affected assessment. The student is able to submit extenuating circumstances to either refer or defer the affected assessment to the next assessment board opportunity.

This form has to be submitted within 5 working days of the affected assessment and must meet the criteria set by the extenuating circumstances panel which is as follows; •

timely,

•

severe,

•

acute,

•

unexpected.

Over the past year we have noted a number of issues that have occurred relating to this process. They include; •

Academic staff not understanding the extenuating circumstances process which results in the student not being told the correct information

•

Academic staff not informing students of the extenuating circumstances or deferred considerations

•

Students with mental health problems are at a disadvantage, because the problems they face are considered foreseeable

•

Students are not aware of the processes until they have received their results

•

Students do not speak to their tutor or programme leader regarding any difficulties that they are facing meaning that they miss out on the options of extenuating circumstances or deferred considerations.

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

LJMU are aware that Extenuating Circumstances procedure needs to be reviewed, and have recently set up a working group which we have been invited to be a part of. We are looking forward to working in partnership through this group to find solutions to the issues identified above that students will find easier to use.

Results Day This year LJMU released all notifications of exam results on the same day (29th June 2015). This was beneficial to students, and an initiative that was supported by LiverpoolSU, as it meant that students were able to access their results on-line from any location, which helped to minimise unnecessary stress. Furthermore, it allowed students to plan ahead based on their referral opportunities, if they had any.

However, our Advice Service received high volumes of calls and emails, which were largely as a result of insufficient information and guidance available to students on Blackboard and could have been easily avoided.

Over a 5 day period we received nearly 180 telephone calls; of these, 35 students were given an appointment to speak to an adviser and the remaining were asked to speak to their programme leader. The main issues that students faced were with referral deadlines, as well as the use of abbreviations which students did not understand on their transcript.

47

EMPLOYABILIT Y In the current climate of Higher Education, it is not a surprise that student employability is at the heart of the Higher Education agenda, and central to LJMU’s 2012-17 Strategic Plan, which commits to being consistently above the national mean for graduate employability by 2017. To deliver this ambition, the University further commits to being ‘a university with employability, entrepreneurship and citizenship at the heart of the student experience’ and the ‘development of employability and entrepreneurial skills as a core part of the student learning experience; and ensuring our facilities support the development of employability and entrepreneurial skills’19.

Today’s students tend to share a focus on their employability, their futures, and their courses; it is certainly true that improving career prospects/ employability is a key motivation for LJMU students.

Recent research carried out by LiverpoolSU for our strategic plan, carried out with 1,157 students, has seen students talk about how the WoW (World of Work) scheme helps them with their employability, and shown that 95% of students rank employability as important or very important to them.

As part of this research, we also carried out four focus groups with students of different ages, varying levels of study, and from different Faculties.

As part of the focus groups we asked students a bit more about employability. Students are aware that in the job market there is a big emphasis on experience and ‘standing out’: “In my field they want experience but it’s difficult to get voluntary work in that field. I spent my summer applying to work in pharmacists. They say there’s no space at that time.”

“You just have to do something that makes you different. Everyone has got A-levels and a degree, all you want is someone who has something different.”

In terms of links between involvement in the Union and employability they often feel that students need to get over the initial fear of approaching the Union for help:

“There are a lot of people in general now that don’t want to go and ask for things, you can’t blame the Student Union for that.“ “I think once people start applying or approach the Union they will calm down quite quickly, once they get over the initial barrier.”

Other students feel that although the Union sends out emails informing them of opportunities, this isn’t enough as they are not always relevant to them: “Not really, it’s probably my fault, they send a lot of emails out with opportunities but there is not a push, the opportunity is gone.”

“Sometimes we get emails which are not relevant to what they are doing.”

Many students talked about the WoW scheme provided

by LJMU, with the majority mentioning the service in a very positive light: “The World of Work helped me. They do say you’re going to get a job because you’ve got all these skills. My placement year, I wouldn’t have got that if I hadn’t gone to the University.”

“I’ve had a positive experience through them.

They’re really good in terms of helping you with CVs and careers advice. The only thing is, I think everything was pushing you towards business.”

“The WoW has helped us because you can reflect on what you are doing and sort your problems before you get to a graduate.”

However, one student felt that it was offered to him too early, and therefore was irrelevant to him at the time and another felt that it wasn’t as relevant to mature students who already have experience: “They also do the WoW skills, I think for us who are older, it’s probably for the younger ones.

For the younger ones the WoW skills that helps.

I think they’ve incorporated it into some of the programs now.”

19 LJMU (2012) 2012-2017 Strategic Plan. Accessed Online: <https://www.ljmu.ac.uk/~/media/files/ljmu/public-information-documents/strategic-plan/strategic_plan_2012_17.pdf?la=en>

48

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

“I felt negative about the WoW program, they started it in year one and you are not yet geared for a career in year one. I think it was the wrong time to introduce it. When the tutor said only 2% of graduates get a job in art. I’m not surprised because the art which they were pushing [sic].

So the WoW program itself wasn’t useful, but the University was useful giving me portfolio work.”

A number of students also mentioned being given career opportunities and help through their university courses:

Professional and Social Studies and the Faculty of Science.

“Lots of opportunities such as volunteering fairs, graduate fairs, and international study experience; gives a wider range of job advice earlier on” “We are always told what are [sic] strengths are and told which choices will lead us to what kind of roles”

“I joined my professional body, my course pays for that, so now I can put that on my CV. It’s like £50 a year and there are three.”

As students acknowledge that they are going to face a tough job market, and with increased numbers of students leading to greater competition for graduate level jobs, it is prudent to assume that this focus by students on employability is likely to increase.

“It’s about your course – your course tutors will know more about relevant internships. It’s more about the Faculty.”

CAREER SERVICES

Students also regularly speak to us through our GOATing activity about employability opportunities.

Across all four faculties students consistently speak to us about their desire to gain ‘real life’ industry experience, be that through guest lectures, field trips, placements, or (in some programmes) topical lectures.

“Would like more guest speakers because they have first-hand experience of the industry and a lot of knowledge” Students, particularly within the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Engineering and Technology, highlighted the positive impact of field trips and practical work on their personal development; “CAT centre field trip; the trip was good for socialising with the rest of the class as well as learning” In previous years, the feedback we’ve received from students has indicated that they would like to see more focus on helping them decide on a career, or chances to gain skills for their already chosen profession. LJMU have recently implemented ‘Employability Champions’ in each course and we look forward to talking to students about the positive impact that this has had on their experience.

It was pleasing to see that in the 2014/15 semester one Faculty Student Voice Report, the feedback we received illustrated personal development in a predominantly positive light. In particular in the Faculty of Arts,

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

LiverpoolSU has an excellent relationship with WoW, and we meet regularly with members of staff from the department to see how we can best work in partnership. The most notable way that this happens is through the LiverpoolSU/WoW Advisory Panel, where all four Sabbatical Officers and Course Reps meet with the key members of staff from WoW, who present relevant information for feedback.

Responding to student demand, LJMU introduced Career Zones in the 2014/15 academic year, with an aim to increase the reach and accessibility of the WoW Careers Centre, which had previously been based in one location (Kingsway House). Two new Career Zones were introduced, one at Byrom Street and one at Aldham Robarts Library.

WoW has consistently involved LiverpoolSU within their work, and worked with us in partnership to use our mechanisms to help gain student feedback on the services they provide. This year the department were keen to gain student feedback on the new Career Zones, and so we spent time asking students a number of questions in relation to the impact of them across campus. We spoke to a total of 144 students from across the faculties in order to find out more about their awareness and opinions of the Careers Zones.

Of the students to whom we spoke, only 12% had made use of the Careers zones. However, more worryingly, just under half of students had not heard of the Career Zones until we spoke to them about it.

49

Have you used the Career Zones?

Have you heard of the Career Zones?

Yes 12%

Not until today 47%

Yes 53%

No 88%

Despite this, it was pleasing to hear that when students had used the service, their feedback on it was overwhelmingly positive. 57% said that the information, advice, and guidance they had been given was “somewhat” or “very” useful compared to 11% who said it was “not at all” or “not very” useful. The staff also received praise with 64% saying they were “somewhat” or “very” helpful compared to only 5% who felt they were “not at all” or “not very” helpful.

The response from students across different campuses showed that a clear majority at each campus believed the location of the Careers Zone was convenient.

From this we can see that the service itself is useful to students and the staff are providing a good service. It seems that the issue is more one of marketing; nearly half of students are not aware that the service exists and, of those who are, only a very small fraction are making use of it. In addition, a simple Google search results in little information about what these are or where students can find them, which in this day and age is problematic.

It would be easy to suggest that priority needs to be given to ensure that every student knows about the existence of the service, what it provides, and the positive customer satisfaction it has earned.

However, whilst this is necessary, in its current form the department is simply not equipped with the resource to deal with many more students than it currently does and greater awareness of their services may cause more problems than it solves. As such, consideration should be given to what action can be taken to provide students with a service that can cater to all LJMU students, especially when these services form such a core part of the institution’s strategy.

50

To gain further insight into students’ views on how well LJMU develops them with the relevant attributes, skills and knowledge to become an employable graduate LiverpoolSU also conducted a number of 5 minute ‘lecture shouts’ in March 2015. Through these, we asked 766 students ‘What are your views on the careers and employability services offered by LJMU?’ The overall percentages are broadly the same as those when broken down to Faculty level and so we have presented just the institution wide figures.

Awareness of Employability Support Services Other/No Response 3% Unaware of Services 27%

Aware of Services 77% The responses showed that just over a quarter were partially or completely unaware of the services available; as above this shows a clear need for stronger marketing and consideration of the resource which supports said activity.

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

What are your views on the careers and employability services offered by LJMU?

“They give very up to date information. Ask loads of questions about what you study and want to do and actually care and want to speak to you, very relevant.”

Needs Improvement 19%

“I managed to obtain a placement through LJMU therefore I think that the careers service is a great asset to the university”

Negative Response 4%

Of the rest, only 4% expressed an entirely negative view of the service while the remaining 19% suggested improvements needed to be made to the service.

Positive Response 77%

Once again, those students who were aware of the services had overwhelming good things to say, with 77% responding positively to the question.

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT

“Location needs to be improved. Join with mini SUs as film studies students rarely go to the libraries.”

“Have more links with large companies across UK and wider international organisations to help students break into the market.”

51

CONCLUSION Through our FSVRs we traditionally make a number of recommendations, some ambitious, some slightly more radical, and some which should be easier to implement. These recommendations are supported by guidance from the QAA, the National Union of Students (NUS), and academic quality experts; as well as solutions that LJMU students have pointed towards through the feedback that they have given us. However, given the size and substance of this report, we did not feel that this was the most constructive way to summarize our findings.

In light of this, we would like to highlight the specific areas, which we believe need to be prioritised, to ensure consistency across the institution and we would welcome setting up meetings with key LJMU staff to outline our key recommendations in each area; •

Assessment and Feedback

•

Teaching Quality

•

Employability

•

Placements

•

Complaints and Appeals

•

Students with an ‘other’ disability (in particular with learning resources), as defined by the NSS

52

Many people have contributed to this report, and we would like to thank all of the students who spoke to us about their experience, the LiverpoolSU staff who supported the research, drafting and layout of the SWS, the LJMU staff who supported our access to a wealth of evidence and survey data, and Emma Williams and Lina Pierce for their experience and encouragement.

We would also like to thank Alterline who supported our research through data analysis and advice.

The final report was approved internally by the Lead Student Representative, and then uploaded to our website and communicated to students for comment.

If you have any comments on this report, or its contents, or if you would like more information, please do not hesitate to contact Becci Heard who is based in the Students’ Union located at John Foster Building, 80-98 Mount Pleasant, via telephone on 0151 231 4942 or via email on R.Heard@ljmu.ac.uk.

STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION REPORT