UCLU HER Student Submission 2016
description
Transcript of UCLU HER Student Submission 2016
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Introduction
The Quality Assurance Agency (QAA) Higher Education Review comes at a vital time for
University College London (UCL). A new five-year education strategy has just been
developed, and a number of new initiatives affecting students’ educational experiences are
in the early stages of implementation. The opportunity to produce a Student Submission
during this period of transition is therefore very welcome. I would like to thank UCL for the
funding provided to ensure a high quality Student Submission was delivered.
As an organisation, we value the strong working relationship we maintain with the
University. Students have been heavily involved in the development of various projects
over the past few years, and it is important that UCL and UCLU preserve this partnership
approach to the development of a quality student education. This partnership must be
mirrored throughout the University, with staff at all levels engaging with students, enabling
them to develop, and recognising students as partners in learning.
I believe the following report is reflective of the views of the members we represent. We
have been open and engaging throughout the drafting of this document to ensure it
accurately captures what it is like to be a student at UCL.
On behalf of the student body at UCL I would like to express our gratitude to the QAA for
the opportunity to ensure students’ views are represented in the review process through
this submission. I hope this document gives insight into the student experience at UCL and
can act as a source of useful information to inform the Higher Education Review.
Wahida Samie
Education & Campaigns Officer
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Methodology & Authorship
0.1 This submission has been written in line with guidance provided by the QAA for
Lead Student Representatives. It draws on existing data and documents produced
by UCL and UCLU. Data sources include institutional surveys, research reports,
committee minutes, policy papers, strategy documents, websites and campaign
evaluations. Unfortunately, we were unable to access data capturing students’
experiences of study abroad programmes and placements due to delays in
obtaining relevant data. We were also unable to capture views of students on
collaborative provision programmes due to a lack of data, but UCLU is committed to
expanding our work in this area into the future.
0.2 This submission was authored by the UCLU Education & Campaigns Officer
supported by the Representation & Campaigns Coordinator (Insight). Progress on
the Student Submission was regularly monitored by the UCLU Higher Education
Review Planning Group, consisting of UCLU staff and student representatives.
Faculty Student Academic Representatives (StARs) contributed to the direction of
the Student Submission through a facilitated workshop. Students were able to
submit comments and suggestions for the submission via the UCLU website.
0.3 The Student Submission and the University’s Self-Evaluation Document have been
shared across both organisations. Some reference is made to the Self-Evaluation
Document in this submission however both documents remain independently
produced.
0.4 The final draft of the Student Submission was approved through a democratic vote
by UCLU Council, the body with responsibility for representing the voice of student
members, on 9 February 2016.
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
UCLU
0.5 UCLU is the representative body for students at UCL and represents more than
35,000 students. UCLU is a democratic organisation run by elected student
representatives who are directly accountable to students. Our vision is to open up
opportunities for students during their time at UCL and enable them to make a fuller
contribution in their future lives. Our mission is to be the voice for all our members;
provide services, support and advice; and facilitate opportunities for students to
share common interests. The UCLU Representation & Campaigns Department,
working with the Education & Campaigns Officer and Postgraduate Students’
Officer, aims to inform and engage members of UCLU with the range of
opportunities to be involved in representing the student voice and campaigning to
make a difference for the wider student body.
0.6 UCLU plays an integral part in student life and we work closely with UCL on our
shared endeavour for an inspirational student experience. We value working in
partnership with UCL as we believe that students are key partners in their
education; this partnership should be a mature relationship where all partners work
together. Partners may at times be in conflict with differing views but will work
constructively to ensure a mutual position is reached.
0.7 UCLU believes that partnership is something more than the sum of its parts. A
university community with a strong culture of partnership promotes a sense of
belonging and connectedness within and across all members of the community,
which is underpinned by mutual respect, support and understanding, co-operation
and collegiality.
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Progress since the Last Review
0.8 UCL established a Post Institutional Audit Steering Group (PIASG) and subsequent
action plan to ensure the timely implementation of the recommendations of the 2009
Institutional Audit. UCLU welcomed the inclusion of a student representative on the
PIASG, as well as the inclusion of recommendations from the Student Written
Submission in the subsequent action plan. While significant developments were made
in certain areas, many of which are referenced in the Self-Evaluation Document, some
areas of concern still exist. The table below outlines key recommendations from the
Institutional Audit and Student Written Submission, and a brief narrative on the
progress so far. A number of issues raised in the last Student Written Submission still
persist today. It is important to note that the PIASG was stood down in 2012 and so we
cannot say that the implementation of these recommendations remained a consistent
priority over the past number of years. The narrative provided surrounding the current
situation is intentionally brief, as most of these issues are discussed later in the Student
Submission.
Institutional Audit (2009) Current Situation (2016)
IA: UCL should maintain its
momentum towards achieving
institutional coherence on
regulatory and academic
processes identified by its own
committees.
UCL has taken positive steps towards achieving
institutional coherence on regulatory and academic
processes. Significant structural changes, including the
merger with the Institute of Education, have made
implementation of this recommendation more
challenging. While the standards set out in the UCL
Academic Manual are intended to be universally
applied, the volume of derogations is worrying.
IA: Where an institutional
position has been reached on
the harmonisation and
simplification of regulatory and
academic processes, UCL
should seek to achieve full and
timely departmental
engagement and alignment.
Following on from the issues outlined above, full and
timely departmental engagement and alignment has not
yet been achieved. This is evident in the varying
experiences and satisfaction levels of students across
the University. The struggle to implement alignment on a
practical level is discussed throughout the Student
Submission
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Student Written Submission (2009)
Current Situation (2016)
SWS: UCL should provide
better and more focused
information for International
and Part-Time students.
UCLU is involved heavily in the International Student
Orientation Programme (ISOP). The information provided
to international and part-time students is of an acceptable
standard, however further provisions for international
students could be introduced. This is discussed later in
the Student Submission. Whilst not outlined as a key
issue in the current Student Submission, the University
should take care to provide comprehensive and focused
information to part-time students, particularly considering
the large number of part-time students studying at the
new UCL Institute of Education.
SWS: UCL should give serious
consideration to the issue of
feedback on academic
assessment as this is one of
the key areas of student
concern cross-institution.
This relates to the IA recommendations outlined above.
Whilst policies and processes have been established,
NSS scores still indicate variability in satisfaction levels
across the institution with regard to assessment and
feedback. Satisfaction with assessment and feedback at
UCL is also well below the sector average. This is
examined in more detail in Chapter Three.
SWS: UCL should consider the
inconsistencies that exist
between faculties which
has[sic] led to radically
conflicting student
experiences.
Variability in NSS scores across the institution indicates
that this is still an issue at UCL. Whilst it is monitored at
an overall level by Academic Committee, it is likely that
this issue would be improved as a by-product of reducing
the aforementioned derogations and securing
departmental alignment with procedures. The recent
merger with the Institute of Education may pose
additional challenges in this area.
SWS: UCL should ensure it
better informs students of
actions taken in response to
student feedback.
Steps were taken to improve guidance and briefings for
all SSCC, DTC and FTC secretaries regarding the
reporting of results of matters arising from previous
meetings and more accurate minute-taking. However
action taken in response to student feedback on surveys
and other consultative decisions are rarely
communicated. The recent appointment of a Head of
Student Engagement will hopefully allow for further
development in this area. This is discussed further in
Chapter One.
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Student Written Submission (2009)
Current Situation (2016)
SWS: UCL should consider the
role of students within the
institution and the restrictions
it places on students as core
members of the institution
(limited access to space,
limited representation on
committees, and limited
contact time with staff).
The StARs scheme is subject to ongoing collaborative
monitoring and review with UCL and UCLU.
Recommendations from various reviews have been
implemented and improvements to the scheme (such as
the introduction of Faculty StARs) have been approved.
However, the UCL IA action plan did not refer to
representation at University level. Student representation
and the UCL/UCLU relationship are discussed in Chapter
One.
■good progress ■some progress ■ little progress
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Chapter One: Student Engagement
Relevant quality code chapters: B5, B8, B1, C, B11, B4
Representative Structures
1.1 The provisions for student representation on Academic Committees are outlined in
the Academic Manual1. Provisions include student representation at departmental
and faculty level committees, as well as representation on UCL academic standing
and sub-committees. UCL recognises UCLU as the representative body for all UCL
students.
1.2 At University level, student representatives sit on the vast majority of UCL’s formal
standing committees including UCL Council, Academic Committee, Education
Committee, and various sub-committees and working groups. UCLU staff members
provide inductions and ongoing support for student members of standing
committees. These inductions explain the committee format and purpose, while
regular briefings provide information and clarification on upcoming agenda items.
Overall student representatives feel their views are acknowledged, listened to and
often acted upon at institutional level. UCLU sabbatical officers also have meetings
with the Provost twice per term, where institutional issues and priorities are
discussed.
1.3 The Student Academic Representatives (StARs) scheme is the primary student
engagement initiative at departmental and faculty level. StARs2 are elected by
students to represent students’ views to UCL. The StARs scheme is run by UCLU in
partnership with UCL. StARs sit on various committees at programme, faculty and
University level, at which they act as the voice of students and ensure that UCL
takes into account the needs of students in its decision making processes. They
achieve this through liaising with UCLU and UCL staff to resolve student issues.
There are currently over 1000 departmental StARs, and approximately 25 Faculty
StARs. The primary means by which staff engage with StARs is through Staff-
Student Consultative Committees (SSCCs), which are required to meet at least
twice each academic year. SSCC meetings provide StARs with the opportunity to
1 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c6/student-representation/department-faculty
2 https://uclu.org/representation/education/student-academic-representatives-stars#starsdefinition
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
feedback to administrative and academic staff regarding issues that have impacted
on programmes and modules. UCLU maintains a database of issue trends at SSCC
meetings by conducting analysis on the minutes of each meeting.
1.4 Some StARs are also members of Departmental Teaching Committees (DTCs),
where modifications to programmes, modules, teaching and assessment are
considered and monitored. Faculty StARs are members of Faculty Teaching
Committees (FTCs) and other faculty level committees.
1.5 Training and induction of StARs and Faculty StARs is provided by UCLU. UCLU
also offers ongoing support and training throughout the year, for example through
the delivery of advanced skills training sessions, and briefings on topics that may be
7 UCLU
sabbatical
officers
~40
Faculty
StARs
~1000
StARs
Cross-UCL
decision-making
bodies
~37,000
Students
Faculty decision-
making bodies
Departmental
decision-making
bodies
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
of benefit to StARs in their roles. UCLU also uses Moodle to support the StARs
scheme by providing resources to StARs, allowing for StARs to engage in discussion
forums, and delivering online training. Induction training focuses on supporting StARs to
consider how they will approach the key elements of their role; gathering feedback from
peers, prioritising issues for discussion, ensuring effective contributions to meetings,
working with staff to ensure students’ issues are resolved, and feeding back to peers
throughout. We also work to support a culture of student engagement by emphasising
their role as a year-round representative, not merely a member of an SSCC. SSCCs at
UCL typically meet only twice a year, but we encourage StARs to be proactive, and to
seek out staff to work with on issues as they arise. We see a highly-functioning system of
student representation, and a well-trained cohort of student representatives, as critical to
ensuring effective student engagement.
1.6 In the 2011-12 academic year we introduced an advanced training programme focused
on building skills and ensuring effective engagement. This training has covered many
skills including assertiveness, negotiation skills, public speaking, and running a
campaign. This training is designed, promoted and delivered by UCLU staff.
“I really enjoyed the advanced StAR training sessions. I feel that the sessions make you not only perform better at this role but help in everyday situations as well” – StARs Advanced Training Participant
1.7 UCL and UCLU have a joint StARs Steering Group which oversees the coordination
and development of the StARs scheme and monitors progress against the StARs
Development Plan 2013-20163. The Steering Group also reports annually4 to the
UCL Student Experience Committee (StEC) and UCL Education Committee.
Summaries of matters arising from department SSCC meetings as well as SEQ
summaries are also reported to both StEC and Education Committee. The creation
of StEC is a welcome development, aimed at ensuring that non-academic student
issues are dealt with appropriately.
1.8 To facilitate greater engagement from staff, UCLU produces a StARs Guide for Staff
annually. This guide details the role of a StAR within the context of individual
3 https://uclu.org/sites/uclu.org/files/u169292/documents/stars_development_plan_2013-2016_october_2013.pdf
4 http://uclu.org/representation/education/student-academic-representatives-stars#StARs%20Annual%20Report
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
departments and faculties, and provides a list of useful resources and contacts. The
guide is vital in ensuring UCL staff members understand how the StARs scheme
operates, and what is required of them to assist in the delivery of the scheme5. A
survey issued to staff across UCL departments in 2015 showed that the vast
majority of respondents who had read the StARs Guide for Staff found it useful.
1.9 The positive experiences of sabbatical officers with institutional engagement is not
necessarily mirrored at departmental and faculty level. The 2015 StARs survey
showed that 76.7% of respondents felt their SSCC operated effectively, with only
63.9% of respondents agreeing that had a say in how their department was run.
Analysis of StARs’ reflective statements show that issues persist from year to year,
and at times it seems as though little action is taken to resolve these issues. While
many departments engage with the StARs scheme effectively, many do not comply
with the systems in place to both appoint StARs and ensure StARs are in place for a
particular programme.
“The department could be more effective in trying to implement our suggestions instead of throwing bureaucracy at us during the SSCC. They are good at easy-to-implement ideas but looking at minutes from previous years, the big issues are remaining as they are year after year.” – Respondent, StARs 2015 Survey
1.10 StARs gain recognition for their work by receiving a certificate at their annual
awards ceremony6. Although most StARs have their efforts accredited on their
Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR)7, we believe students studying
medicine and postgraduate taught students should also be permitted to engage with
the HEAR scheme.
5 http://uclu.org/stars/staff
6 https://uclu.org/system/files/attachments/stars_certificate_guidance_note_201516.pdf
7 http://uclu.org/higher-education-achievement-report
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Feedback & Other Methods of Student Engagement
1.11 We recognise that UCL departments use Student Evaluation Questionnaires (SEQs)
and that the results of these questionnaires feed into the programme review
process. Some of these results or summaries of these results are shared at DTC or
FTC meetings. UCL offer guidance to staff on creating SEQs and provide an SEQ
suggested template8 as well as a bank of SEQ questions. Departments and
programmes decide on questions used in the evaluation process. This makes it
difficult to directly compare satisfaction with other programmes and modules in a
department, or across the University more widely. A move towards a centralised,
online SEQ system has been discussed and we believe this would be of great
benefit. There is little evidence suggesting SEQs are discussed in a
meaningful manner at SSCC meetings.
1.12 Students can also feedback through the National Student Survey (NSS) and
Student Barometer annually. The consideration of results from both of these
feedback mechanisms is a requirement as part of the Internal Quality Review (IQR)
and Annual Student Experience Review (ASER) process. In addition, postgraduate
research students have the opportunity to feedback through the Postgraduate
Research Experience Survey (PRES), with faculties required to identify three key
areas for improvement based on the results. Relevant professional services
including UCL Library Services and UCL Information Services Division (ISD) will
also be required to report on intended actions based on these results. UCL will also
participate in the Postgraduate Taught Experience Survey (PTES) for the first time
this year.
1.13 UCL also cites other methods of student engagement in the SED including online
discussion forums through Moodle, student consultation events and focus groups.
However, student participation in these initiatives is often low. Promotion of these
initiatives is often restricted to the ‘MyUCL’ newsletter and the UCL website. UCLU
also promotes these activities amongst StARs. Exploring new avenues to engage
students in their educational experience is to be welcomed, and we believe UCL
should make a more concerted effort when promoting these alternative forms of
8 http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c6/annexes
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
student engagement. A more strategic and wide reaching approach to promotion
would result in higher levels of engagement.
1.14 UCL recognises the Personal Tutoring system as a method of student engagement
in the SED. There are significant issues with this system, and these issues are
addressed in Chapter Two. However, it is our view that a well-functioning personal
tutoring system is vital in supporting students, but does not constitute student
engagement as defined by the QAA.
1.15 Additionally, Professional Services (e.g. Library Services, Student Psychological
Services, ISD) engage with students on an ad-hoc basis to gain feedback and work
collaboratively on various projects.
1.16 UCLU holds an annual Education Conference, which provides a space for shared
dialogue between students and staff to collaboratively examine and explore the
future of education at UCL. The 2016 Education Conference will be themed around
student involvement in the implementation of the UCL Education Strategy 2016-21.
To date, engagement from UCL in the Education Conference has been positive, with
UCL staff facilitating workshops and contributing to deliberations at the conference
each year.
Student Engagement in Programme Design, Development & Approval
1.17 The process for approving programmes has recently changed at UCL. The
Programme and Module Approval Steering Group (PMASG) has been replaced with
a series of smaller Programme and Module Approval Panels (PMAPs). We welcome
the inclusion of a student member on each of these panels. UCLU works in
partnership with UCL Academic Services to recruit a pool of students for these
panels and provide induction, training and support. While the pool of staff meet
together annually to discuss the operations of PMAPs, we believe the pool of
students should also be part of this process. The Programme Institution
Questionnaire (PIQ) requests the core information needed for programme approval,
including ‘market research’. It would be useful to gain greater clarity on how market
research is conducted in this context. It is our belief that market research should
refer mainly to gathering and valuing the opinions of current students, prospective
students and alumni as part of this process.
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Student Engagement in Programme Monitoring & Review
1.18 As stated earlier, the consideration of NSS and Student Barometer results are now a
requirement as part of the Annual Student Experience Review (ASER) process and
these results have always been part of the dataset given to Internal Quality Review
(IQR) teams. Each IQR team includes a Student Reviewer, and students within a
department are interviewed as part of the review process. UCLU work closely with
UCL Academic Services to ensure Student Reviewers are well-supported
throughout the IQR process. In the past three years we have strengthened and
deepened this partnership, and taken an increasingly co-ordinated approach to
ensuring Student Reviewers can contribute confidently and effectively.
1.19 Student Reviewers attend a briefing run by UCL Academic Services, which is the
same as that attended by new Staff Reviewers. UCLU also provides additional
training to ensure context and clarity on the purpose of the review. Student
Reviewers receive HEAR accreditation as recognition for their contribution, subject
to criteria based on their participation. We are also planning on ensuring that
summary outcomes are made available to StARs in the reviewed department, to
make sure they are aware the review has taken place, and are able to feed-in to
planning how to take forward recommendations made by the IQR.
Recent Developments in Student Engagement
1.20 The UCL ChangeMakers initiative is another element of Student Engagement at
UCL. It supports students and staff working in partnership on educational
enhancement projects9. The initiative facilitates student-initiated projects, supports
the role of UCL ChangeMakers Scholars to work with departments on improving
assessment and feedback practices, and offers grants to staff to work with students
on a project to develop their teaching. UCLU has been involved in the development
of the UCL ChangeMakers Projects and the initiative is welcomed as an additional
strand of student engagement. It is important, however, that initiatives like UCL
ChangeMakers do not duplicate existing engagement mechanisms. It is equally
important that UCL takes a coordinated approach with UCLU in this area. We have
particular reservations about the Scholars element of the UCL ChangeMakers
9 https://www.ucl.ac.uk/changemakers
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
initiative, as this may compromise the functioning of the well-established
StARs scheme. The role defined for UCL ChangeMakers scholars is best played by
student representatives at departmental level. The Scholars initiative was initially
developed without consulting UCLU, and a greater partnership approach in this
instance would have proved beneficial. However, we look forward to continuing our
work with UCL in supporting ongoing complementary student engagement
initiatives.
1.21 UCLU welcomed the establishment of the UCL Student Experience Forum in
2013/14, providing an opportunity for elected student representatives, senior UCL
officers and directors of key Professional Services to meet and take a strategic
approach to monitoring and improving the student experience. However, with no
status under the UCL formal standing committee structure, there were concerns
about the effectiveness of this forum in having the capacity to implement decisions
to improve the student experience. The revised remit and creation of a senior
committee in the form of the UCL Student Experience Committee (StEC), dealing
with non-academic aspects of the student experience was therefore a welcome
development.
1.22 The new appointments of UCL staff with a student engagement remit are also a
welcome development. Specifically, the recent recruitment of the Head of Student
Engagement and the Student Experience Data Manager is positive. These roles are
intended to work extensively on the NSS, Student Barometer, and PTES, with the
PRES administered by the UCL Doctoral School. We hope that these new roles will
facilitate a more coordinated approach to student engagement initiatives into the
future and will work in partnership with UCLU.
1.23 The recently developed UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 outlines a clear
objective “to create cultures of student engagement and leadership.” The draft
document contains many positive strategic statements committing to more
comprehensive investment in feedback surveys, staff-student partnerships working
to tackle problems, and creating a platform for mutual learning. We welcome the
commitment to directly involve students in the creation and shaping of policy and
practice at all levels and the description of UCL as a community of scholars. The
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
UCLU response to the UCL Education Strategy10 sets out a belief that “students are
partners, and that this should permeate every aspect of policy communication and
the priorities set out in this strategy.” UCL recognises UCLU as the representative
body for all students, and we welcome the inclusion of specific commitments to
developing a joint understanding with UCLU on creating a culture of engagement.
This commitment is now outlined in more explicit terms, following our response to
the UCL Education Strategy11.
Recommended Improvements to UCL’s Approach to Student Engagement
1.24 While UCLU enjoys representation on many of UCL’s formal standing committees, a
lack of representation with respect to estates and the usage of space is a concern.
The allocation, maintenance, availability and usage of space have been consistently
highlighted as an issue for many students. It is important that students are engaged
in frequent and meaningful conversations in relation to estates and the use of space
and engagement on this matter should not be through surveys alone. Issues
regarding space will be discussed in more detail in Chapter Four. Students do not
have representation on the University’s Estates Management Committee (EMC).
The EMC deals with issues relating to the principles for the allocation and use of
space and ongoing review of the UCL Estates Strategy. The lack of student
membership is in contrast to a number of other Russell Group institutions whose
EMC or equivalent include student membership. In the context of the space issues
outlined later in this document, and the large scale capital projects currently ongoing
at UCL, student membership on EMC is vital to ensure the student voice is
considered in the agreement of future proposals and strategies. Of greater concern
is the lack of student representation on the Learning Spaces Project Board. This
Project Board considers activities including academic timetabling, room bookings
and the quality and quantity of teaching and learning spaces. It is vital that the
student voice is heard in relation to estates issues.
10
http://uclu.org/sites/uclu.org/files/u72247/documents/uclu_response_to_the_ucl_education_strategy_2016-
21_response_phase_2_2.pdf 11
http://uclu.org/sites/uclu.org/files/u72247/documents/uclu_response_to_the_ucl_education_strategy_2016-
21_response_phase_2_2.pdf
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Recommendation 1: UCL should enhance student engagement with estates issues
in the context of limited space and ongoing capital projects by including student
representation on the Learning Spaces Project Board and the Estates Management
Committee.
1.25 With the wealth of recent developments to enhance student engagement, we
believe that UCL should continue to develop a strong partnership with UCLU to
replicate the successful collaboration evident with the StARs scheme. Engaging
students as partners is mentioned as an objective in UCL’s twenty year strategy,
UCL203412, stating that UCL should “ensure that our students, at every level (UG,
PGT and PGR), feel that they are a key and integral part of our University
community, and that their opinions and suggestions are valued and acted upon, as
full partners in the future of UCL.” In this regard, the best way to ensure effective
student engagement is for UCL and UCLU to develop initiatives in partnership for
student representation and engagement. The UCLU response to the UCL Education
Strategy sets out a number of “ambitious goals for developing a partnership
approach and more effective student engagement.” Our proposed goals are:
Developing a joint UCL/UCLU Student Partnership Strategy, describing the
different ways in which we will support students to individually and collectively
engage with their education
Developing a high-level, cohesive, joint approach to the planning,
implementation, oversight, and integration of student engagement initiatives,
including StARs, ChangeMakers, and other forms of student engagement.
Ensuring decision-making is timed and structured in a way that is accessible to,
and instils confidence in students
Developing clear and enhanced policy on student representation
Continuing our joint work to deepen student involvement in quality assurance
and enhancement
12
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-2034/principal-themes/academic-leadership/objectives
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Recommendation 2: UCL should adopt the goals set out in the UCLU response to
the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 and subsequently work in partnership with
UCLU to ensure students are engaged as partners in the assurance and
enhancement of their educational experience.
1.26 While the aforementioned mechanisms show that UCL takes steps to engage all
students in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience, there
are issues with communication when student feedback has been acted upon.
Faculty StARs at a Higher Education Review workshop expressed concern that
communication in this regard was not clear or effective in informing the wider
student body of improvements made. While StARs can and often do communicate
changes as a result of issues raised at SSCC meetings, the responsibility of
ensuring students are aware of changes should be shared between the University
and student representatives. This viewpoint is supported by results highlighted in
the PRES13. Just 57% of respondents agreed that the institution values and
responds to feedback from research degree students, while in one faculty, only 46%
of students agreed with this statement. These figures are well below the sector
average of 62%. Equally, in the 2015 Student Barometer summer wave, only 68% of
students agreed that “student feedback on my course is taken seriously and acted
upon.” We appreciate that UCL has recognised this as an issue in the Self-
Evaluation Document, and look forward to positive developments in this area14.
Recommendation 3: UCL should take necessary steps to implement a coordinated
and wide-reaching communications strategy that informs students when changes
have been made as a result of student feedback.
13
http://www.grad.ucl.ac.uk/survey/ 14
UCL SED – student engagement section
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Student Engagement Summary
1.27 While formal mechanisms are in place to support aspects of student engagement,
and deliberate steps have been taken to foster greater engagement in relation to
quality assurance, the recommendations outlined above are vital in establishing a
real sense of partnership for the enhancement of the student educational
experience. We recognise that UCL have taken steps in the right direction in recent
years with the establishment of a number of initiatives and the appointment of staff
members to create a greater partnership culture. However, as many of these
initiatives are new or in the early stages, we do not yet know how effective they will
be.
1.28 UCLU and UCL together should harness a culture of student engagement that
focuses on recognising students as partners in their learning. Mechanisms such as
surveys and responses to feedback will only go some way to creating this culture. It
is vital that UCL commits to working collaboratively with UCLU and students
on both new and ongoing student engagement initiatives. This starts with
recognising the importance of the student voice in relation to estates and learning
spaces, improving methods of communicating changes in response to feedback,
and establishing a shared understanding of student partnership at UCL.
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Chapter Two: Learning & Teaching
Relevant quality code chapter: B3, C, B11, B4
UCL’s Strategic Approach to Learning & Teaching
2.1 UCL has two high-level documents detailing their strategic approach to education,
with specific references to ambitions for teaching and learning. UCL2034 is a new
twenty year strategy for UCL with a principal theme of being “A global leader in the
integration of research and education, underpinning an inspirational student
experience15.” In this regard, UCL aims to “create a learning culture and curriculum
structures that develop and foster independent thinking that is radical and disruptive.”
2.2 In the shorter term, the UCL Education Strategy 2016-21 outlines plans to implement
initiatives that support UCL’s commitment to research-based education16. The strategy
names the embedding of the Connected Curriculum across the University as a key
objective. The Connected Curriculum is an initiative with a focus of giving every student
the opportunity to participate in research throughout their programme of study. More
widely, the Connected Curriculum exemplifies a joined up approach to the delivery of
education at UCL, promoting connection with the UCL community, the workplace, other
subject areas and the outside world. UCLU continues to actively shape the Connected
Curriculum initiative with UCL and we are supportive of UCL’s commitment to the
initiative in the new UCL Education Strategy.
2.3 Objective five of the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 outlines UCL’s commitment to
reviewing and revitalising the approach to postgraduate taught education, an objective
that is again welcomed by students. We believe it would be beneficial to work closely
with UCLU in the early stages of implementation with this objective; assisting in the
identification of issues raised by postgraduate taught students.
2.4 Objectives six and seven of the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 deal with resourcing
issues related to space and digital infrastructure. The overarching commitment to
improve the quantity and quality of space provision is certainly positive. Issues regarding
space provision and related recommendations are outlined later in this section. The
15
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/ucl-2034/principal-themes/integrating-research-education/objectives 16
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/2016-21
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
UCLU response to the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 welcomed the digital
infrastructure objective as “ambitious and specific.”
2.5 UCL Arena demonstrates UCL’s commitment to the enhancement of teaching practice
for lecturers, teaching fellows and postgraduate students who teach (PGTAs)17. UCL
Arena is described as “a meeting place where colleagues can share approaches to
teaching and learning.” UCL Arena is accredited by the Higher Education Academy, and
engages with the UK Professional Standards Framework (UKPSF). It is encouraging to
see a programme dedicated to the enhancement of provision in this area, and we hope
the University works to secure greater staff uptake with UCL Arena into the future.
Teaching Provision at UCL
2.6 Scores from the 2015 NSS, whilst slightly below the sector average, indicate that the
vast majority of students (86%) are satisfied with the teaching on their programme of
study. Figure 2 below outlines the percentage of students agreeing with the outlined
statements relating to “The teaching on my course.”
Figure 2: NSS 2015 - student satisfaction with "The Teaching on my Course"
17
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/arena
87
80
86 89
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Staff are good atexplaining things
Staff have made thesubject interesting
Staff are enthusiasticabout what they are
teaching
The course isintellectuallystimulating
Satisfaction with Teaching
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
2015 Student Barometer summer wave results are also positive and consistent with this
figure, with 84.2% of respondents indicating that they were satisfied with their learning
experience.
“Generally, the teaching has been of a really high standard, with approachable and well informed staff.” – Student Comment, NSS 2015
2.7 While the results remain positive on the whole, it is disappointing that the rate of
satisfaction with teaching and learning in the NSS has remained relatively stagnant over
the past six years. The Institutional Teaching and Learning Strategy 2010–2015
committed to establishing “excellence in teaching and learning,” with specific
commitments to introduce measures to revise support for teaching and learning and roll
out an online teaching and learning portal. While initiatives such as UCL Arena were
designed for this purpose, it is disappointing to see that efforts to enhance students’
learning experience have not been reflected in NSS results. UCL was once ahead of
the sector average in this area, however a slight drop in satisfaction scores at the
University, coupled with increasing satisfaction elsewhere in the sector has
meant that UCL is now lagging behind. In addition, Student Barometer results for
learning satisfaction (while still high at 82%) have declined steadily since 2008. We
recognise the commitments outlined in the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021 and
hope they are implemented effectively so UCL can become a sector leader in this area
once more.
2.8 While the institutional outlook is positive, closer examination of satisfaction in individual
faculties shows that there is significant variability between scores. Figure 3 below depicts
the satisfaction scores by faculty.
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Figure 3: NSS 2015 - Student Satisfaction with "Teaching on My Course" by faculty
2.9 In fact, deeper analysis of scores in this area shows that variability in satisfaction with
teaching exists within faculties themselves, at a departmental level. For example in the
Bartlett Faculty of the Built Environment, 88% of respondents in the School of
Architecture were satisfied with teaching on their course, compared to just 66% of
students in the School of Planning. In this regard, we believe UCL should work to ensure
that teaching practice remains of a consistently high standard across the board by
achieving cross faculty and departmental participation in enhancement initiatives.
Recommendation 4: UCL should take steps to secure cross-University participation and
alignment with teaching enhancement initiatives like UCL Arena.
2.10 Analysis of issues raised at SSCC meetings has consistently identified teaching as the
most frequently raised item. In 2014/15 teaching issues were raised 575 times at SSCC
meetings, representing 38% of all issues raised. This reflects an appetite for students to
engage with staff and work collaboratively on teaching and learning issues. Each
teaching issue identified is then sub-categorised based on the nature of the issue raised.
The sub-categories are teaching rooms, module content, teaching delivery (including
resources), teaching standards, learning resources, class/seminar sizes, and
assessment issues. 219 of the teaching issues raised related to teaching delivery
91 91 90 88 82
87 88 79
89
71 82
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
Faculty Satisfaction with Teaching
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
(including resources), while just 18 related to teaching standards. These figures have
remained relatively consistent in recent years. While the low number of issues relating to
teaching standards is positive; the high proportion of teaching delivery issues may be
slightly more concerning.
2.11 UCL Arena aims to provide support opportunities for postgraduate students who teach.
PRES results indicate a need for greater development in this area. Only 54% of
respondents felt they were given appropriate support and guidance for their teaching,
while just 48% received formal training for their teaching. This is below the sector
average figures for both areas which stand at 57%. The proportion of postgraduate
research students who had taught or demonstrated during their research degree
programme was 45%, five percentage points lower than the sector average.
2.12 UCLU facilitates the recognition and reward of staff who engage in quality teaching
practices, and staff who provide essential support to teaching activities. This
recognition takes the form of the Student Choice Teaching Awards18 (SCTAs). The
SCTAs have been entirely developed by students; they developed the criteria,
created the name and make up the entirety of the judging panel. SCTA categories
include outstanding teaching, outstanding support for teaching, outstanding
personal support and outstanding researcher development. Approximately twelve
staff members are recognised for their commitment annually. Staff engaged in
quality teaching practices are also recognised through the Provost’s Teaching
Awards, organised by UCL
2.13 Procedures exist to identify poor teaching through the student complaints procedure19.
Students are encouraged in the first instance to contact student representatives or
module coordinators before exploring more formal complaint procedures.
2.14 We welcome the commitment outlined in the enablers section of the UCL Education
Strategy 2016-2021 to establish parity of esteem between teaching and research
relating to reward and promotion criteria. We believe this is vital in ensuring quality
teaching is recognised and appreciated.
18
http://uclu.org/representation/education/student-choice-teaching-awards 19
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c1/complaints/Student_Complaints_Procedure.pdf
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Learning Resources – Library
2.15 NSS results indicate that overall students are satisfied with the provision of learning
resources at UCL. The satisfaction score of 84% is only slightly below the sector
average of 86%, however again UCL should remain vigilant as the satisfaction score in
2010 was 1% higher than the sector average. In particular, students are satisfied with
library facilities, with 88% of respondents agreeing that “the library resources and
services are good enough for my needs.”
2.16 While the NSS results show a positive undergraduate student experience with library
resources, this may not be the case universally. The most recent LibQual survey
administered by UCL Library Services in 2013 showing that postgraduate students were
more dissatisfied with the library than undergraduate students. The greatest concern of
postgraduate students was regarding space for individual study, while all students
expressed discontent with noise around the library sites. This therefore made a case for
more quiet study rooms, more group study spaces or more social spaces to ensure
noise is contained elsewhere. Positively, the 2015 PRES showed that 88% of
postgraduate research respondents felt there was adequate provision of library facilities
(including physical and online resources). In addition, issues relating to libraries were
raised just three times in SSCC meetings in the 2014/15 academic year. UCL Library
Services provide a range of opportunities for students to deliver feedback, and the low
rate of issues at SSCC meetings may be reflective of this. Overall it seems students are
satisfied with the provision of library services at UCL, however we would encourage the
University to protect study spaces and prevent noise as student numbers continue to
increase.
“The main library is a brilliant place to work although in the last year it has felt a lot busier than it used to” – Student Comment, NSS 2015
2.17 This year, UCLU proposed that the Main Library, the Science Library and the Cruciform
Hub open on a 24/7 basis in the run up to exams and during the exam revision period.
This proposal was subsequently approved and adopted with the support of UCL Library
Services. This is a key example of the University taking action in response to student
feedback from the NSS and discussions with UCLU sabbatical officers, and
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
disseminating this information effectively. This practice should be replicated in other
areas, as recommended before.
2.18 The UCL library services strategy places the user experience at the centre of its work20.
It outlines an action to draw up a student services charter for UCL Library Services,
improve staff training, and work in partnership with students and other users. This is a
comprehensive strategy and we look forward to seeing this plan implemented over the
coming years. In addition, UCL Library Services have been proactive in working
alongside students and UCLU to develop and shape learning spaces. UCL Library
Services have delivered sessions on learning spaces at the UCLU Education
Conference for the past two years, demonstrating their commitment to establishing an
open dialogue between staff and students. Replication of this level of commitment
towards student engagement across all University services would be welcomed.
Learning Resources – IT provision
2.19 Respondents in the 2015 NSS indicated a high level of satisfaction with IT provision, with
86% of respondents being able to access general IT resources when they needed to.
The 2015 Student Barometer summer wave results support this view, with 90% of
respondents satisfied with IT support. While useful, these questions are rather general,
and give little information regarding students’ true experiences of engaging with IT
provision at UCL. Feedback from the 2015 PRES indicated that just 74% of
postgraduate research students felt there was adequate provision of computing
resources and facilities.
2.20 UCL Information Services Division (ISD) ran a user survey powered by TechQual in
December 2015. For each service area, students were asked to identify the minimum
service level they expected, their desired service level and their perceived service level.
Students perceived service level of reliable internet and adequate Wi-Fi both fell below
their minimum expected service level. This was also the case when referring to the
availability of classrooms or meeting spaces with technology that enhances the teaching
and learning experience. Perceived standards also fell below minimum expectations in
relation to finding and using PCs on campus and finding and using printing, scanning
20
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/library/about/strategy
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
and copying facilities on campus. A risk analysis report submitted to StEC noted that
UCL provides fewer PCs per student than its Russell Group21 peers and is constrained
by a lack of space and funding. The eleven other areas assessed in the ISD survey,
including having websites and online services that are easy to use, having online
services that enhance the teaching and learning experience, and questions relating to
support and training, either met or exceeded the minimum expected standard.
Worryingly, no area met or exceeded respondents’ desired standard of service. We
acknowledge that ISD is now taking steps to respond to the results of this survey by
implementing improved standards of service.
2.21 Staff members were also invited to participate in the same survey, and overall their
responses painted a significantly more negative picture of IT provision at UCL. In
particular, service fell well below expected standards in relation to reliable internet,
adequate Wi-Fi, the availability of classrooms or meeting spaces with technology that
enhances the teaching and learning experience, and getting timely resolution of
technology problems. Staff responses to this particular survey raise a cause for concern.
The UCL Education Strategy 2016–2021 outlines a number of ambitious plans that will
rely heavily on increased and improved IT provision across the University. At an open
Town Hall meeting to discuss the draft Education Strategy in December 2015, staff
expressed a number of concerns regarding the ability of ISD to meet the demands likely
to be placed upon IT provision in the coming years. In one particular department, an
online supervised test for 550 students was unable to go ahead due to IT failures. It was
their belief that online testing was a positive development resulting in significantly lower
failure rates, but capacity and reliability issues make it a less viable option. With
increasing student numbers and a likely increase in the complexity of technological
requirements to support learning, it is vital that ISD receives necessary resources to
tackle these issues. At the same meeting, it was explained that of the funding available,
approximately half would be spent on fixing current basic infrastructure. We believe is
vital that UCL ensures current basic infrastructure is functioning well before embarking
upon ambitious IT projects to which poor IT provision could prove detrimental.
21
http://russellgroup.ac.uk/
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
“As a tutor, we need to be able to trust and rely on the system in order to provide high quality teaching sessions within which we need to
access the Internet and know it won't crash” – Staff Respondent, ISD Survey
2015
Recommendation 5: UCL should invest in ensuring IT provision is of a desirable
service level for staff and students and ensure adequate resources are in place to
support technology-based projects outlined in the UCL Education Strategy 2016-
2021
2.22 The previous ISD Student Survey in 2013 outlined things that students most want to
change in relation to IT provision. More computers in departments, libraries and around
campus was the “thing students most want to change” followed by improving and
extending IT support, more printers, wireless printing, and improved Wi-Fi. ISD
summarised a number of actions being taken in response to student feedback from this
survey working alongside UCLU, including the introduction of a laptop loan scheme,
development of the Lecturecast22 service, and encouraging staff to use learning
technologies. We welcome the move to prepare Lecturecast as an opt-out rather than an
opt-in service. UCLU have worked collaboratively with ISD on these improvements,
however more could be done to communicate this joint effort and outcomes to staff and
students across UCL.
2.23 The 2013 ISD Student Survey was replaced by the TechQual survey issued in 2015.
While the TechQual survey is useful, particularly for benchmarking against the sector,
the ISD Student Survey provided specific feedback on UCL services including Moodle
and Lecturecast and also asked specific questions relating to learning spaces. Again in
reference to Chapter One, it is vital that the University engages with students in a way
that is both frequent and meaningful. General surveys provide useful feedback, but do
not always provide feedback that is meaningful and can subsequently be used to
implement change.
22
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/technology/lecturecast
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Learning Resources – VLE & Printed Resources
2.24 UCL makes use of Moodle to host its virtual learning environment. In the ISD Student
Survey of 2011 and the 2013 equivalent students listed Moodle as the most liked and
third most liked thing about IT provision respectively. When asked to give examples of
good practice in relation to technology use in teaching and learning, respondents in the
2013 survey listed basic Moodle use as the most effective. Student satisfaction with
Moodle was the second highest of all IT facilities in 2013 with almost 90% of
respondents satisfied with it. Overall students are satisfied with the Virtual Learning
Environment (VLE) at UCL. The University must ensure this remains the case as they
attempt to introduce more complex technology-focused teaching and learning initiatives.
Additionally, UCLU supports a blended approach to learning that takes advantage of
advances in technology in a way that complements face-to-face teaching.
2.25 Each programme provides students with a handbook that should detail information
relating to most aspects of study including registration, teaching and learning practices,
and student support provision. For the purposes of this submission, we obtained a
number of programme handbooks to assess the information provided to students. While
many departments and programmes provide students with detailed information
regarding the aforementioned areas, this is certainly not the case universally. Some
handbooks did not provide any information relating to personal tutors, or support
services and very limited information in a variety of other areas. UCL has recognised in
the Self-Evaluation Document that the “processes for updating information and ensuring
that it is current and correct need further development.” This is a matter of real
importance in ensuring every student is given sufficient information regarding their
studies.
Recommendation 6: UCL should provide guidance regarding the minimum level of
information required in programme handbooks and work to achieve departmental
alignment with this guidance.
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Learning Resources – Space & Facilities
2.26 UCL’s location in Central London poses inevitable space issues. A summary of the 2013
LibQual survey administered by UCL Library Services indicated that “the space provided
by UCL Library Services is not currently close to meeting the desired levels of service for
undergraduate students.” As mentioned earlier, respondents in the survey declared a
preference for more quiet study rooms, more group study spaces or more social spaces
in order to keep noise away from other students seeking a quiet place to study. The
same survey received a lot of free text responses stating that library spaces were too
cramped.
2.27 A risk analysis report on learning spaces, physical library and online library submitted to
StEC in 2015 raised concerns regarding a lack of space. Increasing student numbers
were identified in the report as the biggest single issue affecting learning space and
library satisfaction scores. It was also stated that the Library spaces are unable to
accommodate all students who wish to use them. According to the report, new estates
developments can only begin to catch up with demand and this risk continues. This also
affects access to core textbooks and materials.
2.28 Satisfaction with learning spaces stood at just 76% of respondents in the 2015 Student
Barometer summer wave. In addition, just 72% of postgraduate research respondents to
the 2015 PRES agreed that they have a suitable working space. This echoes complaints
received by UCLU throughout the year about unsuitable and sometimes unsafe working
spaces for postgraduate research students. The UCLU Postgraduate Students’ Officer
indicated, through interview for the Student Submission, that she had received a number
of complaints about work spaces being too small and not fit for purpose.
2.29 In the recent past, a number of space-related policies have been debated and adopted
by UCLU Council23. In particular, students have voted to seek more study space in UCL
during the weekends, and improved examination venues. Facility related issues made
up approximately 7% of all issues raised at SSCC meetings in 2014/15.
23
http://uclu.org/policy
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
2.30 A policy recently adopted by UCLU Council relating to examinations noted that “the UCL
estate is too small and poorly managed and utilised, particularly in the context of
expanding student numbers” and calling for “wholesale change in the way examination
timetables are produced.” The UCLU Education and Campaigns Officer is part of an
Exams Working Group exploring these issues, and this policy remains a priority over the
coming year.
2.31 We welcome UCL’s commitment to the development of new study spaces as part of the
UCL Estates Masterplan24. We believe that study spaces should be collocated with
teaching spaces and academic departments. Our view is that UCL should maintain a
strategy for cautious growth, ensuring any increase in student numbers is
accompanied by equivalent increased resource to support student learning and
takes the availability of space into account. Equally important is the necessity to
alleviate pressure on already crowded facilities on the Bloomsbury campus. With large
scale development of the UCL estate, and students clearly expressing preferences for
the way in which space should be used, it is clear that the student voice must be
represented on relevant committees. A risk analysis report on campus buildings and
teaching spaces submitted to the November 2015 meeting of StEC indicated that capital
investment in the UCL estate had not kept pace with increased student numbers growth
(over 40% since 2007). This, in addition to a lack of aligned institutional-level decision-
making had contributed to problems currently being experienced in this area. The
meeting discussed unsustainable increases in student numbers further, stating that the
issue appeared to be behind many of the problems brought up in various student
experience risk analyses. The view expressed at this meeting is supported by UCLU;
any increase of student numbers needs to be conducted sustainably and not at the
expense of the student experience.
2.32 UCLU welcomes commitments outlined in the UCL Education Strategy with a view
towards evaluating the use of furniture in teaching rooms and significantly enhancing the
quality of UCL’s learning campus. It is vital that student views are accurately represented
throughout this process. We therefore must reiterate the importance of our previous
recommendation to enhance student engagement with estates in the context of
24
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/masterplan
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
limited space and ongoing capital projects by adding a student representative to the
membership of the Learning Spaces Project Board and the Estates Management
Committee.
Supporting Student Learning
2.33 The University supports students to achieve learning outcomes by investing in resources
to support staff in improving teaching quality, including the UCL Arena programme, UCL
ChangeMakers and the Connected Curriculum. The Centre for Advancing Learning and
Teaching (CALT) facilitates each of these initiatives. In relation to teaching and learning,
projects have included academic skills mentoring in the Institute of Education, and PhD
writing retreats in the departments of Anthropology and English.
2.34 2015 NSS scores relating to the specifics of academic support were quite low with only
71% of students satisfied they had received sufficient advice and support with their
studies, and the same proportion satisfied that good advice was available when they
needed to make study choices.
2.35 The personal tutoring system at UCL aims to provide every student with a member of
academic staff to act as a point of contact throughout their studies. This personal tutor
should take an interest in the student, offer guidance on overall academic progress as
well as personal and professional development. They are also often referred to as the
first point of contact for students when they wish to discuss any welfare related issues.
UCLU fully supports the spirit of personal tutoring and believes it could be of great
benefit to students. However, there is a large degree of inconsistency in the
implementation of the personal tutoring system across UCL. In the 2015 Student
Barometer summer wave, approximately 73% of free text responses relating to
personal tutors were negative.
“Personal tutors demonstrate extreme disinterest in their students, I would be surprised if mine could name/ recognise me” – Student Comment,
2015 Student Barometer
2.36 An investigation conducted by an appointed personal tutoring working group at UCL
found that students’ experiences of personal tutoring were highly variable, both between
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
and within departments. The investigation goes on to suggest that students’ negative
experiences of tutoring seem to make them feel isolated and undervalued. This may not
only have an impact on their satisfaction with UCL, but may affect how much they are
able to achieve during their time here. The working group highlighted two important
factors that we believe are key to explaining issues with the personal tutoring system.
The first is that a common feature of negative tutoring experiences stem from a lack of
commitment of the tutor involved. Secondly, the group found that fewer than four in ten
departments provide any form of training or developmental support to personal tutors.
The report also declared that the uptake of resources to support student learning through
the personal tutoring system is quite limited. UCL has provided a handbook for personal
tutors, but the system in general is falling far short of the model scenario.
2.37 In instances where personal tutoring is effective, students find the relationship to be one
of trust, with engagement with personal tutors proving beneficial, motivational and
reassuring. We want UCL to ensure that this is the case for every student. The personal
tutoring working group proposed a number of recommendations to UCL Education
Committee aimed at improving the personal tutoring system. While these
recommendations were welcomed, the Committee resolved to replace the current
requirement for Personal Tutors to meet with students throughout the year, with a more
flexible outcome-led policy. Faculty Tutors were asked to take the idea to Faculties and
Departments for discussion and feedback to CALT, who would draw up some more
detailed proposals for consideration in March 2016. While steps to improve the system
are welcome, we approach these developments with caution. Any recommendations
must take significant steps to repair a fundamentally broken personal tutoring system.
UCL should work closely with UCLU in developing any personal tutoring system policies.
It is particularly important that a coordinated approach to the programme is taken, with
clear lines of responsibility for monitoring and overseeing personal tutoring on an
ongoing basis. We would welcome the opportunity to work with UCL on continuously
improving the personal tutoring system, to ensure that students are enabled to develop
in their field of study effectively.
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Recommendation 7: UCL should take greater steps to improve the personal tutoring
system, for example through securing increased commitment from personal tutors,
establishing a coordinated approach to supporting personal tutoring and through
the provision of appropriate training and support.
2.38 In the Self-Evaluation Document, UCL recognises a need to establish better support
systems for staff in overseas campuses. This is a welcome statement, and an idea that
should be extended to students on oversea campuses. UCL Australia provides an
example of where a lack of support systems negatively impacted the learning
experience of students on the campus. The IQR carried out at UCL Australia in 2013
identified a number of areas where UCL Australia was not adhering to UCL policies and
procedures. This included issues with having no student representation on the DTC and
failures in the operation of the Personal Tutoring System. Although issues were formally
documented in IQR reports and formal recommendations were made, the experience of
students at UCL Australia did not improve. Issues persisted through 2014 when, in
correspondence with UCLU, students at UCL Australia expressed concern
regarding the environment in which they were undertaking their PhD programme.
Students felt their rights were not adequately provided for and resources to support
students in their studies were insufficient. Despite raising these issues through
appropriate channels, no immediate solutions were provided. A submitted grievance
ruled in favour of a student involved. UCL Australia is to wind down by 2017; however
we hope the experience of these students’ acts as a cautionary tale.
Recommendation 8: In embarking upon initiatives on overseas campuses and
establishing collaborative provision programmes, UCL should take steps to ensure
students receive the same level of support as those studying on the main UCL
campus.
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Equality in Learning & Teaching
2.39 UCL has made a number of high level commitments aimed at taking an inclusive
approach to learning and teaching. We have worked successfully to date with UCL on
the “Liberating the Curriculum” initiative, which seeks to challenge the current euro-
centric, white-hegemonic, male-dominated curriculum. A working group has been
established to determine ways of putting black, queer, disabled and feminist
contributions on an equal footing in the curriculum.
2.40 UCL has also become one of the first universities in the UK to receive an award for
taking action to tackle racialized inequalities in the academic sphere, gaining a bronze
award in the Race Equality Charter for higher education. It is encouraging that the
success of different categories of students (e.g. international, BME) will be explicitly
monitored as part of the ASER process. We recognise and support initiatives taking
place to reduce the BME attainment gap. UCL are proactive in taking opportunities to
reaffirm this commitment in various strategic documents. We are also proud of the
ongoing work of widening participation staff at UCL. UCLU has been actively engaged in
the development of UCL’s Access Agreements and supports the objectives of UCL’s
Widening Participation Strategy.
2.41 The UCL e-learning framework provides guidance on best practice on accessibility of
learning materials. Students also receive great support through the UCL Student
Disability Service (SDS)25. UCL has acknowledged that the Bloomsbury campus is not
yet fully Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) compliant. Last year, the UCLU Disabled
Students’ Network launched the “Try it”26 campaign aimed at educating students and
staff about various disabilities, and engaging them with tasks to experience what it is like
to navigate UCL as a disabled person. The campaign subsequently received the NUS
Campaign of the Year award.
25
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/disability 26
http://uclu.org/tryit
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
“Mainly so far people have just found that it’s hopelessly signposted. So, even if there is an accessible path for someone to take, they have no way of knowing and they just have to roam around.” – UCL Student, Try It
Campaign
2.42 This is a serious issue affecting the disabled students we represent, and one that should
be a priority of UCL Estates Management Committee (EMC). This once again provides
support for our stated recommendation to establish student representation on the
University’s EMC. A video was produced depicting the inaccessibility of venues around
UCL and is available to view online27.
Learning & Teaching Summary
2.43 Students are generally satisfied with the provision of teaching and learning opportunities
at UCL. However there are a number of areas that require improvement to ensure every
student is given the opportunity to develop as an independent learner and to ensure their
capacity to think in different ways is enhanced.
2.44 While teaching enhancement activities like UCL Arena are to be welcomed, it is
important to ensure that they are implemented and utilised across the University. High
uptake in certain disciplines and low uptake in others could, for example, lead to
drastically different standards of teaching for two students taking different modules but
on the same programme of study.
2.45 Whilst generally satisfied with the library, students have not been as forthcoming with
praise for IT provision at UCL. With large scale IT upgrades necessary to ensure the
implementation of the UCL Education Strategy, this is an area that must be monitored
closely. A reliable and capable IT system is vital for the independent learner of today.
2.46 Pressure on space and facilities in the face of changing student demands, as well as
failures to secure a DDA compliant campus once again reiterate our call for
representation on key relevant estates committees.
27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8RiAEdWF4c
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
2.47 The personal tutoring system at UCL is in desperate need of improvement, and a wider
strategic approach to student support would be welcomed. It is of particular importance
to ensure students on other campuses are not disadvantaged in any way, and are
provided with the same level of support as all other students. We look forward to
engaging with UCL on improving students’ experience of learning and teaching at the
University.
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Chapter Three: Assessment & Feedback
Relevant quality code chapters: B4, B6, B7, B9, B11
Student Satisfaction with Assessment & Feedback
3.1 NSS scores for student satisfaction on assessment and feedback have been
consistently low over the past six years. Satisfaction has remained at approximately
61%, while average satisfaction in the sector has increased every year. Figure 1 below
shows the trajectory of assessment and feedback satisfaction scores in the NSS for both
the sector and UCL since 2010.
Figure 4: NSS 2015 student satisfaction with assessment and feedback
3.2 When analysed at faculty level, the outlook remains poor with satisfaction in the Faculty
of Engineering as low as 51%. Again looking deeper, we see that satisfaction at
departmental level falls to a low of 31%.
3.3 There are five questions in the NSS that relate directly to assessment and feedback.
74% of students indicated satisfaction that assessment arrangements and marking had
been fair, raising the average to the 61% figure mentioned above. Lower percentages of
students were satisfied with the promptness of feedback on their work, that they had
received detailed comments on their work, and that the feedback on their work helped
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
% s
atis
fie
d
Year
Sector
UCL
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
them to clarify things they didn’t understand. 63% of students agreed that the criteria
used in marking had been made clear in advance. Figure 2 below charts the satisfaction
rate for each question.
Figure 5: Student satisfaction with assessment and feedback
3.4 These poor satisfaction scores were again evident in research carried out by UCLU in
2011. 44% of 1800 respondents in that survey were not aware of what feedback they
could expect on their work. This research took the form of a six question survey relating
to the feedback service standards approved by the UCL Academic Committee in 201028.
A report summarising this research and recommendations was submitted to UCL
Education Committee in July 2011. At this meeting it was agreed that the Committee
would oversee and monitor the implementation of the recommendations made by
UCLU29. However, it is unclear if monitoring took place and whether or not
implementation of these recommendations has been achieved.
3.5 The 2015 Student Barometer summer wave results paint a slightly less negative picture
with assessment, performance feedback and marking criteria having satisfaction levels
28
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/feedback 29
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/governance-and-committees/committees/ec/minutes/1011/edcom_110706.pdf
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Asessment and Feedback
Fair assessment arrangements andmarking
Marking criteria made clear inadvance
Prompt feedback on work
Feedback helped clarify things Ididn't understand
Received detailed comments on mywork
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
of 79%, 68% and 66% respectively. PRES results indicate that 74% of postgraduate
research respondents agreed that the final assessment procedures for their degree were
clear to them; however this figure was at a low of 66% in one faculty.
3.6 Trends analysis of issues raised at SSCC meetings consistently identify assessment and
feedback issues as one of the most frequently raised items. Assessment issues and
concerns regarding the promptness and thoroughness of feedback together accounted
for approximately 15% of all issues raised by StARs in 2014/15.
3.7 It is clear, given the results outlined above from various sources, that fundamental
assessment and feedback issues need to be addressed.
Assessment & Feedback: The Current Situation
3.8 Assessment regulations are outlined in the UCL Academic Manual30. It is important that
assessment practices are fair across the University, and we recognise that individual
departments may need to employ different assessment practices given the nature of the
discipline. Derogations are therefore outlined as part of assessment regulations in the
UCL Academic Manual. However, the sheer volume of derogations in this area is cause
for concern. Nine of eleven faculties have approved derogations or variations from the
main UCL assessment regulations. Some encompass individual programmes of study,
while other derogations apply to the department or faculty as a whole. Although NSS
results do not provide us with the level of detail necessary to understand precise reasons
for student dissatisfaction, we are concerned about the large number of derogations
outlined in the UCL Academic Manual.
3.9 We feel that UCL places too much emphasis on the three-hour unseen end of year
exam. There is a lack of diversity in assessment methods employed in many
departments. UCL has a number of guiding principles for assessment at the University31.
These principles refer to ensuring assessment is proportionate, encourages student
understanding of the assessment process, and consider diversity of the student
population. There is a lack of reference to the need for diversity in assessment methods.
30
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/c4-intro 31
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/assessment_guiding_principles
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
3.10 The external examining system at UCL provides monitoring for the quality of assessment
processes. This year, for the first time, external examiner reports have been made
available to students online via Portico. Reports were previously available upon request.
However at this stage, few students are aware of the external examining system and the
availability of external examiner reports. UCLU has disseminated this information
through StARs but there has been little engagement so far. UCLU endeavours to make
students aware of this new development and would appreciate help from UCL in raising
awareness, especially through departmental websites, handbooks and SSCC meetings.
3.11 Following discussions with UCLU, UCL implemented Service Standards for the
Provision of Feedback to Students on Assessed Work in 2010. Under these standards,
students should expect feedback to be provided within four weeks of the submission
deadline. While these Service Standards are helpful, NSS scores regarding promptness
of feedback seem to indicate that they are not being met.
“Personally I believe that the feedback times are getting better but still aren't great. It seems unfair that we as students are given deadlines to complete work and lose marks if we miss them whilst if
lecturers miss deadlines they seem to be penalised less.” – Student
Comment, 2014 Student Barometer autumn wave
3.12 The Service Standards, as outlined, provide little direction regarding the components of
quality feedback. A number of resources32 are available to assessors to use in providing
feedback, including a feedback proforma33, and details of the NUS Assessment and
Feedback Benchmarking Tool34. UCL Arena provides useful resources to assist in
delivering quality feedback, including workshops exhibiting best practice in the area35.
Staff members at these workshops have raised concerns over their ability to deliver
detailed feedback when assessing a large volume of students. Best practice in this area
is normally exhibited by assessors with a relatively low number of students. However
there is no requirement for assessors to make use of these resources, and no
32
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/case-studies/assessment-feedback 33
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/Using_Proformas_for_Feedback_Quick_Guide.pdf 34
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/NUS-assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool.pdf 35
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/case-studies/assessment-feedback
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
regulations to ensure feedback provided is detailed or allows students to clarify things
they didn’t understand. We do, nevertheless, welcome the themes of the 2015/16 ASER
and the recognition of NSS scores as “the primary area of concern requiring concerted
action by the university.” The 2015/16 ASER requested explicit confirmation of clear
assessment and marking criteria for programmes and modules, as well as requiring
departments to have effective mechanisms in place to ensure assessment feedback
service standards are met. In addition, each department was required to benchmark
their practice against the NUS Assessment and Feedback Benchmarking Tool36 as part
of the ASER ‘development and enhancement plan’. Departments falling below a certain
NSS score were subjected to the ASER Intensive Engagement Process, where key
senior management staff met with the Head of Department to review the ASER plan and
set priorities for action.
3.13 Processes around the provision of feedback are inconsistent. There are, however,
pockets of good practice in relation to feedback at UCL. For example, some modules in
the UCL Institute of Education implement a peer review of feedback programme. Under
this programme, a staff reviewer is provided with guidance to complete a feedback
review form which identifies types of effective feedback, and what to look for in the
assessor’s comments.37 The reviewer then provides written observations of the
assessor’s feedback. This is a method also currently being explored by the UCL
Department of Geography. Unfortunately this again highlights an issue with the loose
nature of guidance and regulations surrounding quality feedback at UCL, and adherence
to any such regulations. The University needs to encourage good feedback practices
across the University as a whole. The previous section showed clearly that student
satisfaction around the quality of feedback provided is low.
Recommendation 9: UCL, in partnership with UCLU, should take major steps to
improve assessment and feedback processes at the University, using NSS
satisfaction scores as a measure of success.
36
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/NUS-assessment-and-feedback-benchmarking-tool.pdf 37
https://moodle.ucl.ac.uk/mod/hsuforum/discuss.php?d=16081
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Demonstrating Good Academic Practice in Assessment
3.14 There is little evidence to suggest that all students are provided with sufficient
information to demonstrate good academic practice. The main focus of the work of
CALT is on providing resources for staff to improve assessment and feedback practices.
Although information regarding assessment can be found in most departmental
handbooks, students are rarely given guidelines or examples of how to demonstrate
good academic practice in an assessment setting.
3.15 The UCL Transition Programme goes some way towards addressing these issues. By
providing first year students with a later-year student from within the same department,
the Transition Programme aims to assist students during their first few weeks at UCL38.
Part of this programme focuses on academic issues and topics relevant to the discipline.
The Transition Programme website also provides some information on developing study
skills necessary to learn independently including time management, structuring essays,
reading and research39. These resources, while useful, are difficult for students to
access, hosted on a subpage of the Transition Programme webpages.
3.16 UCL offers students access to a skills4studycampus.com online resource. Similarly, this
resource provides students with information relating to time management, reading and
note-taking and critical thinking skills40. However uptake of the resource is very low, and
again difficult to access through a subpage of the CALT webpages.
3.17 The CALT webpages seems to focus almost entirely on the advancement of teaching
practices with staff, and very few resources are available to students. For example,
many of the guides produced by CALT are aimed at a staff audience, who are expected
to pass this information on to students41. While it is both useful and necessary to equip
relevant staff with this information, similar resources aimed at students in an accessible
format would prove beneficial.
3.18 In general, the onus is placed on individual faculties and departments to provide vital
resources and workshops to support students in demonstrating good academic practice.
38
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/transition 39
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/transition/study-skills-resources 40
http://www.skills4studycampus.com/StudentHome.aspx 41
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/pdfs/Helping_Students_Understand_Assessment_Quick_Guide.pdf
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Some faculties provide study skills guides to assist students in demonstrating good
academic practice42, but this is not the case universally. Individual faculties and
departments also offer workshops to assist in demonstrating good academic practice but
the frequency of these workshops is hugely variable. For example, the UCL School of
European Languages, Culture & Society (SELCS) run numerous “Writing Lab”
workshops throughout the year43 and the UCL Institute of Education hosts an academic
writing centre44. However, when searching websites of some other departments, we
could not identify anything of a similar nature.
3.19 The lack of a coherent approach to supporting students in developing necessary
academic skills, and demonstrating these skills through assessment, is a cause for great
concern. Students are clearly in need of greater academic skills support, and this will be
discussed further in Chapter Four.
Recommendation 10: UCL should offer greater support to students to help
demonstrate good academic practice in assessment. This support should include
easily accessible resources, and a consistent level of staff support through
workshops.
Reasonable Adjustments/Extenuating Circumstances & Academic Appeals
3.20 The process for submitting academic appeals is clearly outlined in the UCL Academic
Manual. Students can receive advice and representation through the UCLU Rights &
Advice Centre. Data from the UCLU Rights & Advice Centre indicates that the proportion
of students visiting the service seeking support with an academic appeal is rather low
with just 104 academic cases out of 2,491 cases overall in 2014/15. We hope this
indicates that students are informed of the processes involved in academic appeals, and
understand the information provided.
3.21 The University takes steps to ensure no student is at a disadvantage when undergoing
assessment at the University. Support for students with disabilities or a long-term
42
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ssees/current-students/undergraduate/undergraduate-documents/ug-study-skills.pdf 43
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/selcs-writing-lab/workshops 44
https://www.ioe.ac.uk/study/147.html
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
condition is provided by UCL Student Disability Services (SDS)45. The University
provisions for extenuating circumstances provide short-term solutions for students
experiencing sudden, unexpected difficulties. These provisions are outlined in the UCL
Academic Manual46. Last year, there were issues regarding the interpretation of new
extenuating circumstances regulations and some confusion about the treatment of
reasonable adjustments in terms of declared disabilities. However, this is now being
reviewed after one year of operation and UCLU is part of this review.
Summary - Addressing Assessment & Feedback Issues at UCL
3.22 Objective three of the UCL Education Strategy 2016-202147 is “to address and resolve
the persistent challenges of assessment and feedback.” We therefore recognise that this
is an issue UCL is now taking seriously and this will be of real importance to students.
This chapter has so far analysed various issues with consistency across departments as
possible causes for low student satisfaction. However, satisfaction scores for
assessment and feedback are low for the University as a whole, and we can only
theorise regarding the causes for these low scores. We therefore understand that UCL
has a large body of work ahead to properly analyse and understand the core issues
resulting in poor satisfaction with assessment and feedback. In the meantime, our
response to the UCL Education Strategy highlighted a number of areas for improvement
including ensuring a wider range of assessment practices, reducing overall assessment
load, and anonymous marking. We welcome the commitment in the UCL Education
Strategy to implement “the recommendations of a root-and-branch review of assessment
at UCL.” This review, will hopefully address longstanding issues with students’
experience of assessment, their knowledge of demonstrating good academic practice,
and develop processes for the greater use of electronic assessment. The Strategy
hopes to have solved these persistent issues by 2021. However, we welcome short term
measures to address issues in the meantime; for example ensuring assessment criteria
are clearly communicated to students, and available well in advance of assessment
dates and concentrated efforts as part of the ASER process.
45
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/disability 46
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/srs/academic-manual/c4/extenuating-circumstances/sum 47
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/teaching-learning/2016-21
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
3.23 The UCL Education Strategy also outlines a commitment to “new forms of assessment.”
As mentioned earlier in this chapter, we would also welcome diversification in
assessment practices in addition to the reduction of overall assessment workload. The
Strategy also outlines the introduction of a Programme Leader, with ultimate
responsibility for reviewing and rationalising assessment across different modules.
Again, this is a welcome aim. It is difficult to comment on the effectiveness of these plans
at this early stage. While we welcome the decision to highlight assessment and
feedback as an area in need of great improvement, we hope UCL listens closely to
student opinion throughout the reform process. There are fundamental issues to be
addressed, and we look forward to working with UCL to identify and rectify these
persistent problems. This will ensure that processes for assessment are valid, reliable
and allow every student to demonstrate the extent to which they have achieved intended
learning outcomes through the demonstration of good academic practice.
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Chapter Four: Student Development and Achievement
Relevant quality code chapters: B4, B11
Personal & Professional Potential – Student-Led Activity
4.1 UCLU provides a wide range of opportunities for students to develop their personal and
professional potential. In particular, we offer a wide range of opportunities for students to
develop leadership and employability skills. We support thousands of students who are
involved in student-led activities and take up leadership positions across our student
societies, sports teams, volunteering opportunities and representative roles. These
students take on significant responsibilities and develop transferable skills, through
formalised training and development sessions. UCLU also provide hundreds of paid
employment opportunities for UCL students across our services in many different roles,
which gives students direct experience of employment.
Professional Potential – Employability & Careers
4.2 The UCL Careers Service outlines resources for students seeking employment during
their time at University and beyond. UCL Careers also offers applications advice to
students, which support students with applications for a specific job or internship. One-
to-one appointments specifically for PhD students are also offered48. UCL Advances is
UCL’s centre for entrepreneurship and business interaction and provides students in
information, resources and support to start or grow their own business49.
4.3 Careers support at departmental level is offered by Careers Consultants who can deliver
careers talks, employer-led events and one-to-one appointments during term time50.
However, the system for delivering this localised support is not consistent. The nature
and frequency of sessions and workshops delivered varies between departments.
Meetings with Careers Consultants can be booked online for students in certain
departments, but this is not the case universally. Students in departments where online
booking is not available are asked to “speak to a member of staff in your department to
find out if/when these are planned.” This lack of consistency is worrying and may place
48
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/specialistsupport/researchers 49
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/advances 50
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/aboutus/team/consultants
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
students who are unable to easily access departmental careers advice at a
disadvantage to their peers.
4.4 UCLU and UCL Careers Service run a Skills4Work programme51 in partnership, which
includes a series of employer led workshops, panel discussions and one-to-one
coaching sessions that help students understand what recruiters are looking for and how
to develop and promote their skills more effectively.
4.5 Student satisfaction with the UCL Careers Service stood at approximately 83% in the
2015 Student Barometer summer wave. While not a particularly low figure, the service
had the lowest satisfaction score of all Russell Group institutions and also performed
poorly compared to scores in the rest of the UK and internationally.
4.6 PRES results show that just 32% of respondents agreed that they had received advice
on their career options, while 71% had developed contacts or professional networks
during their time at UCL. While seemingly low, both figures are broadly in line with the
sector average. Still, this does highlight the potential to improve the provision of careers
advice and support for postgraduate research students.
Staff Supporting Development
4.7 Personal Tutors are identified as the key staff member with a role in supporting personal
and professional development in all years of study. The fundamental issues with the
execution of the personal tutoring system to date have been explored in detail in Chapter
Two, and we have made a recommendation in relation to this. With specific reference to
professional development, the UCL Careers Service provide a Personal Tutor Support
Pack52 to “inform students how to support students with career related issues.” In reality,
this pack simply outlines the services provided by UCL careers and provides a list of
“generic careers resources.” This exemplifies the lack of a comprehensive and
coordinated approach to the training, induction and ongoing support of personal tutors.
The postgraduate taught ASER iteration emphasised PGT employability and we look
forward to analysing the outcomes of this focus.
51
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/events/skills4work 52
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/careers/staff/studentsupport/personaltutorpack/personaltutorpack2015
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
4.8 UCL clearly has aspirations about what a personal tutoring system should deliver in this
area, but as stated earlier, the delivery of the programme is both inadequate and
inconsistent across the University. This results in a lack of provision of personal and
professional development support for undergraduate and postgraduate taught students.
4.9 Postgraduate research students are expected to engage with their supervisors to receive
guidance on personal and professional development. The use of the Research Student
Log53 is now mandatory for postgraduate research students. The log is used to record
details relating to a student’s graduate degree programme including supervisory
meetings and activities relating to the development of academic, personal and
professional skills. Research students and their supervisors are expected to meet at
regular intervals to discuss any ongoing training or development needs. Students are
also encouraged to participate in courses offered through UCL’s Doctoral Skills
Development Programme. However, participation and good use of the research student
log is dependent on good engagement from both the student and their supervisor(s).
Evidence suggests that the stated processes for postgraduate research student
development are not being followed. PRES results indicate that just 70% of students
agreed their supervisor helped them to identify their training and development needs as
a researcher. This was below the sector average of 74%. Worryingly, just 47% of
postgraduate research students had received training to develop their transferable skills
(compared to a sector average of 50%) and only 33% had agreed a personal training or
development plan, well below the sector average of 45%. We are therefore not confident
that robust processes are in place to ensure postgraduate research students are
receiving support to achieve their personal and professional potential. The way in which
skills training is provided to postgraduate research students has recently changed.
General skills training is now delivered centrally, while more specific training is delivered
on a departmental/faculty basis. At this stage it is too early to assess the relative merits
and demerits of this approach.
53
https://researchlog.grad.ucl.ac.uk/
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Recommendation 11: UCL should implement a more robust system of monitoring
personal and professional development for postgraduate research students.
Student Satisfaction with Personal Development
4.10 NSS 2015 results show that 79% of respondents are satisfied with their personal
development experience at UCL. This is below the sector average of 83%. Again the
sector has experienced an upward trend in this area, while UCL’s satisfaction scores
have remained relatively stagnant. This is illustrated in Figure 6.
Figure 6: NSS Student Satisfaction with Personal Development
4.11 Again in this area, there is a large degree of variability in personal development
satisfaction across faculties reaching a high of 92% in the Faculty of Medical Sciences
and a low of 75% in the Faculty of Mathematical & Physical Sciences. Variability also
exists between departments in the same faculty. In the Faculty of Social & Historical
Sciences for example, 86% of students in the History of Art department were satisfied
with personal development provision, compared to just 54% of students in the
Geography department.
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
UCL
SECTOR
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
4.12 75% of students agreed that their programme had helped them to present
themselves with confidence, 81% that their communication skills had improved and
80% agreed that they felt confident in tackling unfamiliar problems as a result of
their programme.
Personal & Professional Development Resources
4.13 UCL’s personal and professional development (PPD) webpages list a number of
resources that are aimed at helping students improve their skills and assist with
PPD planning54. The outline of these webpages and the information provided on the
homepage is particularly unclear. A headline explains that the resources listed will
support personal and professional development, however no further narrative is
offered. A follow-on link to PPD development guidance webpages is equally
confusing55.
4.14 A UCL Personal & Professional Development System, accessed through the
student information system Portico, allows a student to “plan and record [their]
development in a systematic way56.” The system itself is difficult to use, and is
accompanied by an extensive set of technical instructions. Uptake of the system is
low amongst students.
4.15 A PPD framework is also provided57 offering web-based resources for four areas of
self-development: academic, self-management, communicating, and working with
others. The vast majority of these resources are hosted on third-party sites and the
information provided is not specific to UCL students.
4.16 MyPortfolio58, also facilitated by an external provider, is a personal learning platform
that allows staff and students at UCL to build CVs, share blogs and network online.
Again, uptake for MyPortfolio is low amongst students.
4.17 There is no systematic, proactive approach to personal and professional
development at UCL, and this is evidenced in the online webpages and
resources provided. The provision and promotion of personal and professional
54
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/resources 55
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/process 56
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/resources/student-guide-ppd 57
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ppd/resources/framework 58
https://myportfolio.ucl.ac.uk/
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
development resources at UCL is haphazard at best. There is a reliance on
externally facilitated websites that often serve similar functions. Resources provided
through the website are not tailored to UCL students and for the most part take the
form of generalist guides. Communication regarding the purpose of personal
development planning and accessible guidance for the use of resources is also
non-existent.
Recommendation 12: UCL should take proactive steps to communicate the
importance of Personal and Professional Development to students, provide tailored,
up-to-date and accessible PPD resources and integrate PPD effectively to the
Personal Tutoring System.
Supporting Transition & Progression
4.18 The UCL Transition Programme59 supports new first-year students arriving at the
University, and helps them to settle in quickly so that they can fulfil their potential. Details
of the academic assistance provided by Transition mentors were outlined in Chapter
Three. However, Transition mentors provide wider assistance in helping students settle
in at UCL and provide guidance on broader issues such as finances and budgeting. The
Transition Programme operates well in this regard, catering for every student and
providing vital assistance to ensure students start life at UCL in the right way. The last
Transition Programme evaluation administered in 2013/14 found that 92% of almost one
thousand respondents would recommend the scheme to future first years. We hope
UCL continues this provision to aid the transition of new students into the future.
4.19 In terms of progression, we welcome the recent decision to pilot late summer resits in a
small number of faculties during the 2015/16 academic year. UCL practice of having
students wait a full year before taking resits was both unusual and detrimental to the
experience of individual students. We also welcome the aim to roll-out late summer
resits across all taught programmes in the 2016/17 academic year.
59
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/transition
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Academic Potential - Skills Development
4.20 A coherent approach to the provision of academic skills development resources is
lacking at UCL. As outlined in the previous chapter, much of the support offered to allow
students to demonstrate good academic practice is offered on a departmental basis with
varying methods and varying rates of frequency. SELCS Writing Labs, mentioned in
Chapter Two, are a key example of good practice in a particular area. However, all
students should be provided with equal levels of academic skills support. In terms of
enhancing and improving academic skills, little support is provided centrally. UCL
recently disestablished services offered by the Royal Literary Fund (RLF) Fellows60. The
RLF Fellows were professional authors, and the principal aim of their work at UCL was
to foster good writing practices across all disciplines, helping all students to write clearly
and effectively. Now many students who are not provided with similar support by their
departments are left without resources to support their academic development.
4.21 UCLU offers the Writing & Language Support Programme (WALS) for international
students studying at UCL61. The WALS programme is a strong example of how
academic-skills enhancement initiatives can be of great benefit to students. The aim of
this peer tutor scheme is to provide assistance to non-native English speakers with their
academic writing and speaking. The WALS scheme runs several activities including
lessons, workshops, bookable one-to-one sessions and “coffee and conversation”
sessions. The WALS programme has proved popular with 83% of one-to-one
appointments booked by students, weekly coffee and conversation sessions attracting
between 7-12 attendees and workshops attracting approximately 20 attendees. In a
WALS evaluation survey, 100% of respondents found the one-to-one tutorials useful,
4.22 Evidence from the WALS programme and the disestablishment of the Royal Literary
Fund Fellows strengthens the call made in recommendation ten for greater support of
academic skills development at the University. This position is supported through results
of the UCLU 2015 Language Support Survey, with respondents indicating a strong
desire for assistance in structuring essays, grammar for writing, referencing and the use
of academic language.
60
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/history/undergraduate/current-undergraduates/academic-support/royal_literary 61
http://uclu.org/wals
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
4.23 On a positive note, UCL delivers the successful Global Citizenship Programme62, a two
week programme that offers students the opportunity to put their studies in a global
context and learn new skills.
Student Development & Achievement Summary
4.24 Overall we believe that UCL needs to take a more proactive approach to student
development and achievement. The issues with the Personal Tutoring system that
in turn affect the adequate provision of academic support also extend to personal
and professional development (PPD) support. Again, we would like to see the
persistent issues with personal tutoring resolved in an effective manner. A more
active role in helping postgraduate research students to reach their personal and
professional potential would also be welcomed. A more coherent approach to the
provision of PPD information, guidance, and resources is required so that students
can understand the benefits and make use of means available to them. We
recognise the strong contribution of the UCL Transition Programme in supporting
students during their first few weeks at University, and welcome steps to support
students to progress through their studies in a fair manner. Finally, we believe UCL
should prioritise improvements in the provision of academic skills development
activities, as this is clearly an area that has been neglected to date.
62
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/global-citizenship/programme
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Conclusion
UCL remains one of the best Universities in the world, a hub of educational and research
excellence. Unfortunately there are instances where education provision falls short of
expected standards and opportunities to enhance learning opportunities are sometimes
not taken.
We have therefore made a number of recommendations that we believe will both rectify
existing issues and improve the student experience. A summary of our recommendations
can be found at the end of this document. We believe that acting on these
recommendations will address persistent issues and enhance the educational experience
of students through student engagement, learning and teaching, assessment and
feedback, and student development and achievement.
A common theme amongst the issues raised in this submission is an inconsistency with
practices across departments and faculty, permeating every area of the student
experience. While individuality of departments is vital, UCL must ensure that every student
benefits from the same level of support as their peers throughout their academic
experience.
Student numbers at UCL have increased substantially over the past number of years, and
as stated in Chapter Four, we must ensure that any future increases are conducted
sustainably. Space and resources are currently at capacity, and an expansion of student
numbers without equivalent investment in resources will have a detrimental impact on the
student experience.
It is important to state that UCLU values its relationship with UCL, and can look back with
pride on the wide variety of collaborative projects delivered successfully over the past
number of years. We appreciate an open and constructive dialogue towards the resolution
of issues, and appreciate that many of the issues raised in this submission have been
acknowledged by UCL, as evidenced in the Self-Evaluation Document. Delivery of an
excellent educational experience for all students starts with engaging them as partners in
their own learning. We look forward to building on already strong foundations towards an
increasingly meaningful partnership and towards the delivery of a world-class academic
journey for students.
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Summary of Recommendations
Student Engagement
1. UCL should enhance student engagement with estates issues in the context of limited
space and ongoing capital projects by including student representation on the Learning
Spaces Project Board and the Estates Management Committee.
2. UCL should adopt the goals set out in the UCLU response to the UCL Education
Strategy 2016-2021 and subsequently work in partnership with UCLU to ensure
students are engaged as partners in the assurance and enhancement of their
educational experience.
3. UCL should take necessary steps to implement a coordinated and wide-reaching
communications strategy that informs students when changes have been made as a
result of student feedback.
Learning & Teaching
4. UCL should take steps to secure cross-University participation and alignment with teaching
enhancement initiatives like UCL Arena.
5. UCL should invest in ensuring IT provision is of a desirable service level for staff and
students and ensure adequate resources are in place to support technology-based projects
outlined in the UCL Education Strategy 2016-2021.
6. UCL should provide guidance regarding the minimum level of information required in
programme handbooks and work to achieve departmental alignment with this guidance.
7. UCL should take greater steps to improve the personal tutoring system, for example through
securing increased commitment from personal tutors, establishing a coordinated approach to
supporting personal tutoring and through the provision of appropriate training and support.
8. In embarking upon initiatives on overseas campuses and establishing collaborative provision
programmes, UCL should take steps to ensure students receive the same level of support as
those studying on the main UCL campus.
Student Submission to the Higher Education
Review 2016
Summary of Recommendations (continued)
Assessment & Feedback
9. UCL, in partnership with UCLU, should take major steps to improve assessment and
feedback processes at the University, using NSS satisfaction scores as a measure of
success.
10. UCL should offer greater support to students to help demonstrate good academic practice in
assessment. This support should include easily accessible resources, and a consistent level
of staff support through workshops.
Student Development & Achievement
11. UCL should implement a more robust system of monitoring personal and professional
development for postgraduate research students.
12. UCL should take proactive steps to communicate the importance of Personal and
Professional Development to students, provide tailored, up-to-date and accessible PPD
resources and integrate PPD effectively to the Personal Tutoring System.