Hertfordshire Students' Union: Student Experience Report 2014 by Hertfordshire Students' Union

Introduction

Methodology

Executive Summary

Section 1 - Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Academic Experience

1. Student representation

2. Assessment and feedback

3. Organisation and management

4. Teaching and learning

5: Academic support

Section 2 - Non-academic Experience

6. Transport

7: Social provision/pricing

8. Student employment within the University

Conclusion/Summary

Last Yearâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Recommendations - An update and reflection

Introduction The Hertfordshire Students’ Union Student Experience Report is a compilation of students’ thoughts, feedback and experiences from the past year. Themes are drawn from a number of sources, including: the NSS, the Student Barometer and the PTES surveys, the Students’ Union’s own all-student survey and the Student Ideas Forum. Our recommendations have been developed directly from student feedback in order to assist the University and the Students’ Union in improving the student experience. This report is in its second year, and has report has been divided into the following sections: Academic experience  Student representation  Assessment and feedback quality  Organisation and management and communication  Teaching and learning, including teaching styles  Academic support and student/staff contact time Non-academic experience  Transport  Cost of facilities on campus  Social space on campus  Employment within the University These sections explore in detail the different elements of the student experience at the University, giving recommendations that we hope will lead to the further development of the student experience. We’ve also reflected on last year’s report, noting changes made as a result of student feedback. Hertfordshire Students’ Union has been delighted to see so many recommendations being implemented, and we look forward to continuing to work in partnership in order to improve what is already a positive student experience. We thank everyone who has contributed their time and feedback to the Hertfordshire Students’ Union Student Experience report, allowing us to move forward and build on our achievements together.

Rana Omer Farooq Vice President Education and Welfare

Isabella Colafrancesco Vice President Student Activities

Jack Amos Vice President Democracy and Services

Shannen Rock Vice President Communications & Media

Gurpreet Singh President

Methodology The Hertfordshire Students’ Union Student Experience Report is produced by the Union’s Research and Representation team in association with the Union’s Elected Officer and Senior Management team. Recommendations are made at the end of each section and are summarised in the executive summary. The report draws on the feedback provided by students through a variety sources (see below), which are analysed and drawn together thematically to give a comprehensive view of the student experience at the University of Hertfordshire. Caution has been taken when comparing PTES data to NSS due to the different populations overall and varying populations within schools. Source National Student Survey (NSS) 2014 Post Graduate Taught Survey Hertfordshire SU Survey 2014 Destination of Leavers of Higher Education 2014 Student Ideas Submissions * Student Representative Experience Survey Student Barometer 2012 Student Focus Groups

Population

Number of Respondents

Type of Data Quantitative and Qualitative Quantitative and Qualitative Quantitative and Qualitative

4704

3607

Postgraduate Taught Students

1394

All students

2305

Alumni

2315

Quantitative

All Students

523

Qualitative

628

133

Quantitative and Qualitative

4290

Quantitative and Qualitative

Qualitative

First & Second Year Undergraduates; Postgraduates Placement Students Retail Users

Comments extracted from all the qualitative feedback are used throughout this survey to reinforce the themes. Comments from the SU Survey 2013/14 and the Student Ideas Database are available on request from contact@hertfordshire.su. The SU welcomes responses to the recommendations in the report. Where recommendations affect the SU, we have responded in the report. *Student Ideas are largely unprompted student feedback. They are submitted by students, with the intention of impacting an issue that affects them, in turn improving the student experience. 4

Executive Summary This report outlines issues related to the overall experience at the University of Hertfordshire that students care the most about. The feedback received relates to both academic and non-academic experiences of students. This year, the majority of student concerns related to: Academic experience  Student representation  Assessment and feedback quality  Organisation and management and communication  Teaching and learning, including teaching styles  Academic support and student/staff contact time Non-academic experience  Transport  Cost of facilities on campus  Social space on campus  Employment within the University Hertfordshire Students’ Union has identified key recommendations on which we would welcome the opportunity to work in partnership with the University to achieve. Within these are some specific suggestions for development of the student experience which can be made, providing a focus for how the University and Students’ Union can work together to achieve these objectives.

Academic experience recommendations Recommendation 1: Increase the effectiveness of student representation i) In order to ensure Student Reps are as effective as possible, we recommend that the Student Representation Engagement Group establish an action plan to increase awareness of Student Reps both from a student and a staff point of view and that the Group actively engage academic staff to ensure that every course has active and supported Student Reps. ii) In order to ensure that a) outcomes achieved by Student Reps are maximised and b) that Student Reps are as effective as possible in their roles, we suggest that an enhanced induction for Student Reps is developed (building on the success of Repstival) and that further development opportunities for Student Reps are invested in. Ensure that the Students’ Union actively collect feedback on outcomes from Student Reps and share these as best practice amongst Student Reps and UH academic staff.. iii) Ensure that SSROs fulfil no representative function in order that Student Reps can fulfil their role fully iv) Review the committees that representatives from the Students’ Union participate in in order to ensure student representation at all levels of the University.

v) Appropriate levels of student representation will be agreed with the Students’ Union

in advance of all working groups and committees via VCSU. Recommendation 2: Implement a full review of Assessment and Feedback mechanisms, timelines and effectiveness. We acknowledge that there is now a full review of Assessment and Feedback being undertaken – we really welcome this review and look forward participating in the review. We recommend that the review consider: i) The impact of assignment clustering on students’ learning outcomes and a commitment to reduce this as much as practically possible. ii) Adherence with the four week return is not consistent across the university, therefore adherence with this regulation should me be made a priority and enforced rigorously. iii) The Students’ Union has previously recommended and continues to recommend that the University should consider reducing the time permitted for the return of assessed work to 15 University working days and ensure that this is enforced rigorously. iv) The Students’ Union has previously recommended that the University adopt the ten principles of good feedback practice as detailed in the NUS Assessment and Feedback briefing paper – this has been agreed in principle. We are delighted with this and hope that, as part of the Assessment and Feedback review, some gap analysis be included to understand where various schools are in terms of their implementation of the 10 principles of good feedback practice. We also recommend that the Union seek feedback from students on their perceptions on how these ten principles are impacting them. We would like to specifically highlight that anonymous marking – one of the 10 principles – be included in this review as we have previously recommended that this be examined. Recommendation 3: Continue to improve and review communications with students regarding: timetabling, changes to students’ courses, cross-school working and placement arrangements, setting minimum standards that must be adhered to across the board i) We suggest that the implementation and improvements made to the centralised timetable continue to be monitored in order to ensure that student feedback is actively sought and acted upon. Ideally, an annual paper submitted to SEEC would be implemented, and the Students’ Union would welcome the opportunity to work with the University on seeking student feedback around the topic. ii) We have previously recommended that the University’s communication methods with students be reviewed. We stand by this recommendation, and we suggest that University emails (ie, @herts.ac.uk emails) are re-introduced (with a more modern student interface). Additionally, we welcome continued involvement in the review of StudyNet. iii) Ensure that any changes are communicated to students in a timely and consistent manner, potentially utilising the ability to text students where appropriate. iv) Establish a working group with appropriate student representation to review processes for cross school working to ensure a consistent and robust approach to cross school working.

v) We recommend that a systematic approach to monitoring the quality of students’ experiences prior to and whilst on placement be implemented and an annual report and action plan be presented to SEEC.

Recommendation 4: Continue to improve the positive developments made surrounding teaching and learning techniques We believe that it is excellent that scores in Teaching and Learning are beginning to show improvements at all levels and 250 members of academic staff are taking up CPD opportunities through the Learning and Teaching Innovation Centre. There has been a decrease in the number of comments this year about the variable quality of visiting lecturers and the type of teaching styles, but there were still concerns highlighted in these areas. i) Hertfordshire Students’ Union to work with the Learning Teaching Innovation Centre and the Centre for Academic Quality Assurance to look at School level MFQ data to better understand the students’ academic experience. We would recommend that representatives from the SU are invited to attend School Academic Committees and other senior school committees/meetings to embed the relationship at school level, with the aim of continuous improvement and the development of initiatives at a school level focused on improving the student experience. We feel by localising the relationship outside of the current committee meetings (For example, CEG, Academic Board, SEEC and ASAC) the schools will strengthen the relationship between students, the Students Union and schools. ii) We suggest that the use of visiting lecturers is reviewed annually in each school in order to ensure a) they are adhering to teaching standards that are in place for permanent staff and b) are relevant to the subject matter and add value in terms of ‘outside world’ experience. We also ask that information regarding lecturer hours compared to the total lecturer teaching hours by school (i.e. excluding research time) be published to students and Hertfordshire Students’ Union. Recommendation 5: Continue to develop the improvements made to academic support with a view towards sharing best practices across schools There are some excellent examples of best practice in this area – particularly notable are the effective systems in place within the schools of Creative Arts, Education and Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, where these schools have scored above the sector. i) We recommend that contact time with lecturers is reviewed at programme level against the sector in order to identify any potential gaps or areas of best practice. Where there is found to be a significant shortfall against the sector mean for the subject area, measures should be put in place to address this as quickly as possible. ii) We appreciate that to re-introduce personal tutors across the University may not be feasible for an institution of this size. We therefore recommend that an investigation is carried out to assess the options available for introducing a modern form of personal tutoring across the University. One suggestion is that students are given a named contact point within their schools to be able to contact upon request. This works successfully in Life and Medical Sciences where there are a group tutor sessions which are supported by one to one sessions on request and we recommend that this option be

explored to see if feasible in other schools in order to ensure students are receiving a consistent experience regardless of their school of study.

Non-academic experiences recommendations Recommendation 6: Hertfordshire Students’ Union and the University work together to support and promote the transport options available on campus i) In 2013/14, we received a number of Student Ideas raising an issue with Uno Bus. We followed this up and presented a series of recommendations in autumn 14 to the Vice Chancellor Student Union Group (VCSU):  Increased student communications about service improvements – we feel the Open Letters are helpful, but should also feature updates following through suggestions that have been made.  Make a customer service charter (or similar organisational values overview) publicly available and specifically publicise this to students and staff.  Uno to be invited to attend an upcoming Student Ideas Forum as part of a panel discussion featuring representatives from the University, senior management of Uno and The Uno Board to hear student feedback and for Uno to update students on service improvements – our aim is to enable students to better understand the fuller picture around UNO Bus and where the responsibilities lie for various facets of the bus service within the University community.  The Students’ Union has invited Uno be interviewed for Universe following on from the article from Issue 3 of UniVerse (dated 17 November 2014) – this is being coordinated with UH Marcomms.  Driver training and recruitment to be reviewed – this has been raised at the Stakeholder meeting, and committed to by Uno. We recommend that as a starting point, the job description on the website could be reconsidered in order to outline from the offset what is expected of Uno Bus drivers.  We recommend Uno Bus issue drivers with comment cards in the hope that they will alleviate passenger frustration, diffuse conflict on the buses and help direct students to the right communications channel in order that they can receive feedback on their complaints. We would ultimately hope that this could assist the buses in adhering to timetables as these could relieve potential arguments with passengers (Appendix 7.1.4).  The Students’ Union can assist with a campaign promoting the Intalink app. This contains the real-time tracking information for buses, which again may alleviate some passenger frustrations.  We have previously recommended a service helpline that mirrors the hours of service. The current helpline is in operation from 8am – 5pm, whereas the buses operational hours are approx. 6am – 3.30am. We strongly support increasing these hours to at least cover the morning and evening rush hour periods. ii) There appears to be conflicting information about student parking on campus – both in terms of cost and availability. While many of these changes are temporary due to building works, we feel additional student communication or clearer signage about the availability and cost of parking on campus would alleviate many of these issues. 8

Recommendation 7: Review pricing on campus and social provision on de Havilland to ensure consistency and appropriateness i) Offer services at a variety of price points to suit various student budgetary restrictions The Students’ Union is committed to charging fair prices for goods and services, and we believe the University feels the same way. However, we recommend that pricing is reviewed in the following outlets in order to ensure that student-friendly pricing is available:  SU shops on both campuses  Forum/EleHouse  Food Hertfordshire food outlets  Club de Havilland  Hertfordshire Sports Village  On campus parking  LRC printing costs and fines  Athletic Union  Nursery Fees  On campus accommodation Where price reductions are not possible, we recommend that alternative value products are offered and promoted effectively. ii) Investigate the possibility of increased social space and social opportunities on de Havilland. With the introduction of the new halls on the College Lane Campus and the increased social space on College Lane (in addition to the new Chapman Lounge, the Oval, Café RØRE and Hutton Hub, the Forum and the EleHouse are continually being invested in to ensure they are market-leading), there is an increased sense that the de Havilland campus does not offer sufficient social space. We recommend that this is considered and addressed in order to ensure students living and studying on both campuses have access to a similar calibre of social spaces, both licenced and nonlicenced. Recommendation 8: Employment within the University The Students’ Union employs 180-200 students per year, on average. At this point in time, we are unsure of how many students are employed by the University. We recommend that the University and the Students’ Union both commit to employing students in part-time and temporary roles wherever possible. We also recommend that both the University and the Students’ Union are transparent about advertising part-time roles on campus and share information across services in order to ensure students have access to as much information as possible on how to secure on-campus part-time roles.

Section 1 - Students’ Academic Experience 1. Student representation The University of Hertfordshire had over 600 Student Representatives in 2013/14 who worked with University staff, Students’ Union staff and Elected Officers to improve the student experience for all students by ensuring they have a voice at course and school level. The system is run in partnership through the Student Representation Engagement Group, who work to develop the system across the university. Student Reps were supported by 24 School Student Rep Organisers in 2013/14 who coordinated the reps and promoted a collaborative approach to problem solving by facilitating discussions and cross-discipline problem solving. 1a: Student Representation and the wider student community Figure 1, taken from the Student Union Survey indicates that 80% of students show knowledge of the system with just under two thirds knowing who their Student Rep is. 39% of students not knowing who their elected representative is concerning and raises a number of questions such as:

Student Rep Awareness Know who their Student Rep is

20%



 

Are elections for Student Representatives happening on every course? Does every course have Student Representatives? Do all academic staff consistently support student representation at course level?

19%

61%

Aware of Student Reps, but don’t know who theirs is Unaware that there are Student Reps

Figure 1: Levels of Student Representative Awareness (SU Survey 2013/14)

When asked about how effective students are in bringing about change on things that affect them, 67% of students who were surveyed in the SU survey 13/14 felt that they were able to make changes on academic issues and 64% indicated that they were able to make changes on non-academic issues. Recommendation 1i): In order to ensure Student Reps are as effective as possible, we recommend that the Student Representation Engagement Group establish an action plan to increase awareness of Student Reps both from a student and a staff point of view and that the Group actively engage academic staff to ensure that every course has active and supported Student Reps.

1b: Effectiveness of Student Representatives At the end of the 2013/14 academic year, the Students’ Union surveyed the Student Representatives, with 68% indicating that their experience was either good or very good. 69% of Student Reps felt supported by their school, and 63% felt supported by the Students’ Union. Student Reps indicate that a perceived apathy from students is a barrier to obtaining feedback which can be effective in bringing about change. 28% of the open text comments in the Student Rep Experience Survey indicate that gathering feedback is a challenge. An example of this is: “Acquiring any sort of feedback from fellow students is incredibly difficult. They just don't seem bothered about the university experience. Or if they are they feel it's too much effort just providing some basic feedback!” (Student Rep Experience Survey, 2014) Whilst it is clear that Student Reps can struggle to get feedback from students, students indicate through the SU Survey 2013/14 that they do have a desire to provide feedback and implement change. Further to this, Student Representatives indicated that the training provided by the Students’ Union in 13/14 was inadequate, with only 44% stating that they felt the contact was relevant to their role. The Union has taken actions to resolve this in 2014-15. Recommendation 1ii): In order to ensure that a) outcomes achieved by Student Reps are maximised and b) that Student Reps are as effective as possible in their roles, we suggest that an enhanced induction for Student Reps is developed (building on the success of Repstival) and that further development opportunities for Student Reps are invested in. Ensure that the Students’ Union actively collect feedback on outcomes from Student Reps and share these as best practice amongst Student Reps and UH academic staff. Recommendation 1iii): Ensure that SSROS fulfil no representative function in order that Student Reps can fulfil their role fully

1c: Students’ Committee Representation and Working Groups Students are currently represented on the majority of University committees including the Board of Governors and Academic Board. Currently, in partnership with the Union, students are not represented on Chief Executive Group, Academic Development Committee and Research Committee. Further to from last year’s Student Experience Report, the Union still feels it is beneficial for 50% of members on all relevant University and Union working groups to be students. A full list of meetings, where the union represents students is available, on request from contact@hertfordshire.su. 11

Recommendation 1iv): Review the committees that representatives from the Students’ Union participate in in order to ensure student representation at all levels of the University. Recommendation 1v): Appropriate Levels of student representation will be agreed with the Students’ Union in advance of all working groups and committees via VCSU.

2. Assessment and feedback There are clear differences in students’ views on Assessment and Feedback based on their level of study. Undergraduates, whilst showing a small increase from 2013 of 2% (NSS 2014), still indicate that they are dissatisfied in this area, with UH being 6% below the sector mean at 66%. This is echoed by a number of ‘Ideas’ (e.g. comment card submissions) we have received on this subject through the Student Ideas Forum. Additionally, 12% of the 3,687 free text comments we received on our own survey in response to the question “Outside of course fees, if you could change any three issues related to your time/ experience at UH, what would they be?” related to Assessment and Feedback.

UH Assessment and Feedback NSS Scores 2011-14 80 70

60 50

64 62

66 66

Sector

20 10 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Figure 2: Line graph showing the UH NSS mean scores for assessment and feedback 2011-2014

Postgraduate students indicate in the PTES that they are more satisfied in this area with an above sector score of 75%. Historically, scores in this area have been lower than the sector mean, which is evident in the NSS trend data in Figure 2 and the 2012 Student Barometer (where the University scored below competitors for assessment with a score of 88.3% (-0.9%) and below the sector and competitors for feedback with a score of 77% against scores of 78.3% and 81.3% respectively).

The bar chart in Figure 3 indicates that a number of schools are falling short of the sector mean in this area. The Business School, Engineering and Technology and Law are considerably short of the sector. It should be noted that Creative Arts and Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics both exceeded the sector in this area. These schools are to be congratulated, and good practice within these schools should be explored. Comments from

78 69

66 69

NSS

PAM

LMS

LAW

HUM

HSK

ENT

EDU

CTA

Sector Mean

COM

Student comments, particularly in the NSS, indicate that this is a significant issue for them. They report that there are times when they go lengthy periods with no assignments which is then followed by a number due in a close period of time.

90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

HBS

2a: Assessment clustering

UH NSS 2014 Assessment and Feedback Questions

the NSS, PTES, Student Barometer and the SU Survey 2013/14 indicate that the following areas are of concern to students:  Assessment clustering  Promptness of feedback  Quality and consistency of feedback

Figure 3: Mean percentage scores by school for the Assessment and Feedback questions for the NSS 2014

“Deadlines for assignments tend to be around the same time. Making it hard to complete assignments to a high level while keeping up-to-date with lectures and tutorials.” (Joint Honours, NSS 2014) “Sometimes assignments have been too close together. So, there's been a big period of just nothing, and then you have two things due in at the same time. It would be better spread out.” (HHSPO, NSS 2014) “Spread out the project deadlines. 6 projects in one week is nearly impossible. It puts health and safety concerns second.” (Post Graduate, SU Survey 2014) If assessment clustering is avoided, as well as benefiting students, this could also reduce pressure on academic staff who currently have to mark this work within a four week window. Recommendation 2i) We acknowledge that there is now a full review of Assessment and Feedback being undertaken– we really welcome this review and look forward participating in the review. We recommend that the review consider: The impact of assignment clustering on students’ learning outcomes and a commitment to reduce this as much as practically possible

2b: Promptness As Figure 4 indicates, there is a considerable gap in this area, particularly Q7 – ‘Feedback on my work has been prompt’. This was evident in the 2012 Student Barometer where the University achieved a score of 77% for feedback against a sector mean of 78.3% and our competitors achieving 81.3%. This is a concerning result when taking into account UPR AS12 Section 5.5, which states that ‘Students’ coursework will be returned to together with feedback no later than four (4) calendar weeks after the submission deadline.’Receiving feedback within this timeframe enables students to develop and improve their work for future assignments.

UH NSS 2014 Assessment and Feedback Questions showing gaps to sector 100 80

60 40

6 Sector

Figure 4: Variance to the sector mean percentage scores for the Assessment and Feedback questions for the NSS 2014

“When we get our assignments back, it would be nice to get the feedback earlier so we know what we need to do for the next assignment. We don't get feedback till after the next assignment is done.” (HHBIO, NSS 2014) “Feedback for assessments is often very late. In many instances its well over a month before I hear back from a tutor” (Creative Arts Student, Student Barometer 2012) “It would be better if I get feedback on my work slightly quicker, so I could revise it in plenty of time.” (Undergraduate, SU Survey 2014) We have previously recommended that the window be shortened, and current evidence shows that the University of Hertfordshire is significantly behind the sector mean for all aspects of assessment and feedback Recommendation 2ii): Adherence with the four week return is not consistent across the university, therefore adherence with this regulation should me be made a priority and enforced rigorously. Recommendation 2iii): The Students’ Union has previously recommended and continues to recommend that the University should consider reducing the time permitted for the return of assessed work to 15 University working days and ensure that this is enforced rigorously.

2c: Quality and consistency of feedback A review of students’ comments across all surveys, as well as a number of Student Ideas submitted to last year’s Elected Officer team highlight that students would value constructive feedback on their work in order to aid in their learning and develop the quality of their work. “Feedback is often picking holes in work rather than giving specific ways to improve future work.” (Design, NSS 2014) “Feedback to be more appropriate and individual - it still isn't and some tutors don't seem to care too much about my progress.” (Undergraduate, SU Survey 2014) “Please can we have more detailed and useful feedback on assignments?” (Student Idea Submission) Students highlight in their comments that there can be inconsistencies in marking. They report varying standards with marking teams and across programmes which makes it more challenging to complete assignments. The 2% increase in the NSS and the above sector results for Assessment and Feedback in the PTES are reassuring and a positive step. Where there have been significant improvements, this good practice should be explored and shared across the University. However, feedback over the past two years NSS surveys and the 2012 Student Barometer indicate that there is still a considerable amount of work to be done to meet students expectations. Recommendation 2iv): The Students’ Union has previously recommended that the University adopt the ten principles of good feedback practice as detailed in the NUS Assessment and Feedback briefing paper – this has been agreed in principle. We are delighted with this and hope that, as part of the Assessment and Feedback review, some gap analysis be included to understand where various schools are in terms of their implementation of the ten principles of good feedback practice. We also recommend that the Union seek feedback from students on their perceptions on how these ten principles are impacting them. We would like to specifically highlight that anonymous marking – one of the 10 principles – be included in this review as we have previously recommended that this be examined.

3. Organisation and management

Organisation and Management NSS Scores 2011-14

The organisation of courses and 79 78 80 77 communication in general at the 75 University remains considerably 74 73 75 72 short of the expectations of 71 76 students both at undergraduate and 70 72 71 postgraduate level. Fig 5 UH 70 70 69 68 demonstrates that this has been an 65 Sector 66 issue at UH for some time and 60 whilst scores in this area are declining year on year, the sector is 55 steadily improving. The NSS trend 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 data indicates that the decline in Organisation and Management Figure 5: UH and sector NSS mean scores for Organisation and follows the introduction of the Agile Management 2007-2014 restructuring programme in 2011 (and its implementation in Sept 2012). This could potentially be a factor in this area’s decline.

NSS 2014 Organisation and Management % by School 90

80 70

72 71 73 63 60 58

68 59

50 NSS

Sector Mean

30 20 10 PAM

LMS

LAW

HUM

HSK

ENT

EDU

CTA

COM

HBS

Figure 6: Mean percentage scores by school for the Management and Organisation questions for the NSS 2014

The Union recognises the introduction of a central timetable will have had an impact in this area, however, student feedback from a variety of sources indicates that timetabling has not been the entirety of the issue. In fact, underpinning the sub-themes of organisation and management is the breakdown of communication at a local or programme level. A review of the data available highlighted that in addition to timetabling, the following areas are of

concern to students:  Communication at course level.  Cross school working  Placements

This is demonstrated in the graphs below. The Bar Chart in Figure 6 demonstrates that in 9 out of 10 schools, students’ satisfaction levels are below the sector mean of 79%. It is reassuring that PAM achieved above the sector in this area and good practice within this area should be explored and shared with other schools. 3a: The University timetable The implementation of the centralised timetable in 2013/14, despite substantial planning, was subject to a considerable number of issues including: frequent unplanned changes, which created confusion; sessions being timetabled back to back but on different campuses; and sessions being completely missed off timetables, which unfortunately caused significant disruption to those impacted. These issues and many more were raised by multiple students directly with Hertfordshire Students’ Union: there were 37 ideas submitted on this subject and the timetable was even the subject of a Student Ideas Forum where the chair of the Timetable Implementation Group answered questions directly from students. Questions covered a range of topics including:       

The timetable interface Room allocations not being suitable to group sizes Evening lectures Spread of the timetable The lack of a pilot for the project Cross campus working Local – paper - timetables being produced to supersede the central timetable.

The confusion caused by the introduction of the central timetable was further compounded by poor communication at course level (see 3b below). With scores in Organisation and Management declining in nine out of the 10 schools – with the NSS declining 4% to 66% and the PTES being 2% off the sector at 75%, it is clear that the timetable has had an impact in this area. However the trend data in figure 5 highlights that in recent years, prior to the implementation of the timetable, scores in this area have been persistently low when compared to the sector. The University has made significant efforts to improve the implementation of the centralised timetable for the 2014/15 academic year. The Students’ Union supports this and we welcome continued involvement with the process. The processes should be monitored as recommended be below in order to ensure that students are getting the best timetable and experience as possible. Recommendation 3i): We suggest that the implementation and improvements made to the centralised timetable continue to be monitored in order to ensure that student feedback is actively sought and acted upon. Ideally, an annual paper submitted to SEEC would be implemented, and the Students’ Union would welcome the opportunity to work with the University on seeking student feedback around the topic.

3b: Communication at University level We have seen some positive changes in the way the University communicates with students â&#x20AC;&#x201C; for example, StudyNet continues to be updated and we understand that the platform is currently undergoing a formal review to ensure fitness for purpose. We welcome this review and look forward to positively contributing to it.

The University should supply students with an @herts.ac.uk email address Strongly agree

5% 10%

Agree 39% Neither agree nor disagree

20%

Disagree

However, we maintain that students would benefit from an @herts.ac.uk email address. We directly asked students about this in our 2014 survey, as illustrated in Figure 7.

26%

Strongly disagree

Figure 7: Student responses when asked whether the University should provide them with an @herts.ac.uk email address (SU Survey 2014)

We strongly believe that the issue needs to be re-addressed with students and explored for feasibility. Recommendation 3ii): We have previously recommended that the Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s communication methods with students be reviewed. We stand by this recommendation, and we suggest that University emails (ie, student @herts.ac.uk emails) are re-introduced (with a more modern student interface). Additionally, we welcome continued involvement in the review of StudyNet.

3c: Communication at course level Throughout the open text comments of the NSS, the PTES and the SU Survey 2013/14, students continually raise that communication at course level is not as clear as they might have expected. Communications, such as postings on StudyNet and emails sent directly to students, are effective, but offer limited impact if messages are not posted with sufficient lead-time. For example, if messages are posted late, students who commute or who live off campus may miss these messages until they arrive on campus. Similarly, if changes in locations are communicated late, confusion may arise for students, potentially resulting in them missing sessions all together. The organisation of the course, the way it is run, is terrible. The way the changes are communicated to us are really bad, we're not told.â&#x20AC;? (HEB, NSS 2014) 18

“The organisation of course is not good. The timetable is very last minute. For assignments, you get the information about the assignments very close to the submission date.” (HHBIO, NSS 2014) “…the University on the whole is good but the organisation of the course and communication needs to be addressed for it to be an outstanding institution” (Nursing, Midwifery and Social Care Student, Student Barometer 2012)

Conflicting information It is imperative that staff provide students with accurate and consistent information. Particularly, visiting lecturers have been cited as having different expectations of students. Conflicting information can cause confusion amongst students, which will impact directly on their whole experience at UH. We recommend that teams within modules prioritise communication to ensure that messaging is consistent; this then needs be replicated at programme level. Information provided to students should be consistent at all levels. “I feel the course is less than organised, giving inaccurate information and conflicting information from different lecturers.” (Nursing, NSS 2014) “…there seemed to be miscommunication between tutors leading to much confusion with regards to expectations of assignments.” (PTES, 2014) Recommendation 3iii): Ensure that any changes are communicated to students in a timely and consistent manner, potentially utilising the ability to text students where appropriate.

3d: Cross school working Where students are working across schools, efforts need to be made to ensure that these students are receiving a consistent level of service from the University. Whilst Joint Honours students are not the only group who work across schools, they are best example of where this can be problematic. Organisation is a considerable issue where students study between different fields of study, for example, where changes are made these students appear to be more affected due to the nature of cross school working. “Better organisation between the engineering and film and TV side of my course.” (Undergraduate, SU Survey 2014)

As a Joint Honours student, I often felt overlooked by both sides of my course where the lecturers only focused on the students doing the full course unless I brought it to their attention that I am a Joint Honours student and may not have done all the modules they speak about. (Joint Honours, NSS 2014) Recommendation 3iv): Establish a 50/50 working group to review processes for cross school working to ensure a consistent and robust approach to cross school working.

3e: Placements Students on placements experience varying levels of support. There are inconsistent practices across the university and even within schools. Students can feel isolated and detached from the University when they are away and have limited engagement with the institution. Students can receive information very close to or even on the day of the placement event which can be disruptive and in many cases distressing. The effects of poor organisation and communication were reinforced in the SU Placement Student Focus groups. For students who are regularly on placement throughout their course, this is a reoccurring process and can disrupt their whole university experience. “I feel that support was needed on placement with clinical staff but also with academic staff when left out. Sometimes have felt alone, nobody wanting to help.” (Radiography, NSS 2014)

“Better organisation of the nursing theory/assignment/placement timings so theory doesn't finish and assignments due in while we are on placement” (Undergraduate, SU Survey 2014) Recommendation 3v): We recommend that a systematic approach to monitoring the quality of students’ experiences prior to and whilst on placement be implemented and an annual report and action plan be presented to SEEC.

4. Teaching and learning As a university with a vast array of courses within a range of disciplines, the approach to teaching is expected to be varied, however consistency in some aspects would ensure that students get a better learner experience. The teaching standard at the University is generally very good and is continually improving through work of the Learning and Teaching Institute (now Learning and Teaching Innovation Centre).

NSS 2014 Teaching and Learning % by School

UH Teaching and Learning NSS Scores 2011-14 90 85

86 82

83 83

84 84 80

82 82 82 82 82 79 79

86 87

86 86 84 85 84

UH Sector

Sector

75 70 UH HBS COM CTA EDU ENT HSK HUM LAW LMS PAM

87 87

Figure 8: UH and Sector mean scores for Teaching and Learning 2007-2014 NSS

Figure 9: Mean percentage scores by school for the Teaching and Learning questions for the NSS 2014.

The national results indicate that students are reasonably satisfied across all levels. This is indicated in Table 1 and Figures 8 and 9, which demonstrate that whilst not quite at the sector mean, the university has recently made progress and scores have improved in 2013/14. There are a high number of comments in the national surveys that demonstrate that there is a high number of exceptional staff at the institution who should be commended on their practice. Their efforts directly impact on students, providing them with a positive experience. Table 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; showing results of each question in the survey compared to the sector mean

Statement Staff are good at explaining things Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching The course is intellectually stimulating The course has enhanced my academic ability The Learning materials provided on my course are useful There is sufficient contact time (face to face and/or virtual/online) between staff and students to support effective learning I am happy with the support for my learning

NSS 2014 Sector in () 89% (90%) 86% (83%) 81% (88%) n/a n/a n/a

PTES 2014 Sector in () 86% (87%) 89% (90%) 84% (86%) 85% (86%) 81% (82%) 65% (67%)

75% (86%)

73% (75%)

4a: Varying teaching styles The sheer number of positive comments about lecturers and academic staff being engaging, approachable and dynamic in their teaching demonstrates that students value being involved in their education and being engaged in their lectures/seminars/tutorials by academic staff that are enthusiastic about what they are teaching. However, across a variety of surveys, there are a number of studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; comments highlighting they are consistently taught by a lecturer simply reading from PowerPoint slides or another teaching aide and their feedback on this is that they

find it uninspiring. It is also clear that students can detect when a lecturer is reusing lectures from previous years. “Lecturers are sporadic in their teaching ability, some only read off PowerPoint at an incredible rate whilst others take the time and explain the topics sufficiently.” (PAM, NSS 2014) “Lecturers should use various teaching methods, allowing non-auditory learners to maximise.” (SU Survey, 2014) Recommendation 4i): Hertfordshire Students’ Union to work with the Learning Teaching Innovation Centre and the Centre for Academic Quality Assurance to look at School level MFQ data to better understand the students’ academic experience. We would recommend that representatives from the SU are invited to attend School Academic Committees and other senior school committees/meetings to embed the relationship at school level, with the aim of continuous improvement and the development of initiatives at a school level focused on improving the student experience. We feel by localising the relationship outside of the current committee meetings (For example, CEG, Academic Board, SEEC and ASAC) the schools will strengthen the relationship between students, the Students Union and schools. 4b: Visiting lecturers On courses where there are a number of visiting lecturers there can be a lack of satisfaction and at times a disparity with other lecturers. Hertfordshire Business School, which is one of the biggest users of VLs, has not seen improvement in its overall NSS score for Teaching and Learning at 79% (-8% below the sector). Course material can sometimes be duplicated and their wider knowledge about the rest of the programme and university can sometimes be too limited. We believe that the significant number of visiting lecturers in the Hertfordshire Business School could be a factor in their overall satisfaction scores for Teaching and Learning. It is concerning for students to be saying that in some instances, VLs can ‘ruin particular modules’. There have been several occasions where visiting lecturers were unable to answer questions from the rest of the class, as they did not know the course content well enough. (Marketing, NSS 2014) I think communication between visiting lecturers and permanent lecturers need to be improved, as sometimes their teaching material can overlap without them realising. (Hum, NSS 2014) Recommendation 4ii): We suggest that the use of visiting lecturers is reviewed annually in each school in order to ensure a) they are adhering to teaching standards in place for permanent staff and b) are relevant to the subject matter and add value in terms of ‘outside world’ experience. We also ask that information regarding lecturer hours compared to the total lecturer teaching hours by school (i.e. excluding research time) be published to students and Hertfordshire Students’ Union. 22

We believe that it is excellent that scores in Teaching and Learning are beginning to show improvements at all levels. It should be noted that whilst this section focuses on areas for improvements, there are schools demonstrated in Figure 8 where students rate their teaching to be excellent. Good practices employed in PAM, as well as a number of programmes within Health and Social Work and Life and Medical Sciences should be explored and shared with other schools with lower scores in this area.

5: Academic support

UH Support NSS Scores 2011-14

The rapidly improving scores seen in Figure 10 show that there is a clear commitment to improve scores in this area, with the 90 79 80 81 75 77 74 74 72 University improving faster than the sector. 80 82 70 However it still remains short of the sector. 78 73 73 72 75 60 Both undergraduate and postgraduate 67 66 50 students indicate lower levels of satisfaction UH 40 in this area with undergraduates scoring the Sector 30 university 78%, 3% off the sector mean 20 (NSS 2014) and postgraduates scoring the 10 university 65%, 2% off the sector mean 0 (PTES 2014). The lower scores in this area directly correlate with the university’s scores for Teaching and Learning . The Trend data in Figure 9 indicates that this area is Figure 10: UH and Sector NSS mean scores for Support 2007-2014 improving year on year, which is to be commended. When broken down by school, the results are considerably more variable. Where there are above sector scores, practices and systems should be explored and shared with schools with lower scores.

5a: Contact time Students indicate at both postgraduate and undergraduate level that they would like more face to face contact time with their academic staff. They indicate, particularly at postgraduate level, that they that feel regular sessions with staff would prove useful to help students learning and keep them on track. “I think there is not sufficient contact time between students and tutors, weekly or bi-monthly synchronous sessions would be really useful to keep students on track” (PTES 2014) “Higher amount of lecture time preferred, as there wasn't much teaching time, or time to communicate with lecturers “ (Music, NSS 2014)

Recommendation 5i): We recommend that contact time with lecturers is reviewed at programme level against the sector in order to identify any potential gaps or areas of best practice. Where there is found to be a significant shortfall against the sector mean for the subject area, measures should be put in place to address this as quickly as possible.

5b: Personal tutors There is no University requirement for schools to have a Personal Tutor Scheme. This has resulted in an inconsistent approach to personal tutors across the University. In schools where these have been utilised, staff and student engagement in the process is varied. A lack of personalised support can leave students feeling unsupported or – in some cases – isolated. “The lack of a visible or present personal tutor is an issue and other courses have an allocated tutor which they meet with and can speak to…” (AUTM, NSS 2014) “Having a personal tutor would be good.” (SU Survey, 2014) I would have liked the personal tutor system I experienced in my final year from the start. It's useful to have one tutor you get to know a little better and feel comfortable speaking to when things aren't going as planned. (Student Barometer 2012) Students who have had a positive experience with their personal tutor really value the support and guidance and would recommend it to others. An effective relationship with a personal tutor can make or break a student’s university experience. “Really supportive personal tutor makes a huge difference. Mine was fantastic!” (Midwifery, NSS 2014) “The introduction of personal tutors in third year was great.” (EDU, NSS 2014)

Students depend on their interactions with both their academic staff and their course colleagues to develop their own expertise and practice. Insufficient contact time, either through lectures or personal tutorials, may leave students feeling isolated and lacking in confidence to use the knowledge and skills they have developed. Figure 11 demonstrates that whilst there is room for improvement generally, this is some very good practice within some schools. The effective systems in place within the schools of Creative Arts, Education and Physics, Astronomy and Mathematics, where these schools have scored above the sector, should be explored and shared with other schools where development is needed.

NSS 2014 Academic Support % by School 84 82 80 78 76 74 72 70 68

82 78

83 79

NSS Sector Mean

UH COM EDU HSK LAW PAM Figure 11: Mean percentage scores by school for the Academic Support questions for the NSS 2014

Recommendation 5ii): We appreciate that to re-introduce personal tutors across the University may not be feasible for an institution of this size. We therefore recommend that an investigation is carried out to assess the options available for introducing a modern form of personal tutoring across the University. One suggestion is that students are given a named contact point within their schools to be able to contact upon request. This works successfully in Life and Medical Sciences where there are a group tutor sessions which are supported by one to one sessions on request and we recommend that this option be explored to see if feasible in other schools in order to ensure students are receiving a consistent experience regardless of their school of study.

Section 2 - Non-academic Experience 6. Transport 6a: Uno Bus The Students’ Union recognises the value of a University-owned bus company to our student population and the positive impact it has on the student experience. We therefore are committed to working with the University and Uno Bus to ensure its success. However, Uno’s service provision is one of the most frequently raised issues via the SU’s feedback channels, and these are regularly discussed at the Uno Bus Stakeholder Group and other opportunities such as VCSU. It is reported that nearly 40% of Uno’s customer base are UH students (via the Uno Bus Stakeholder Group Minutes). Feedback on service Although the SU has not formally conducted any market research into Uno’s service levels, we have received a high volume of feedback via a variety of channels, including:    

Our Student Ideas Forum Social media – Facebook and Twitter Letters and emails to Elected Officers Our all student survey

These are the themes we have discovered from looking into the evidence a little deeper:  

   

Overall customer service – on buses, at the deport and opening times Communication from Uno – information about delays, cancellations and last minute timetable changes. There are also comments relating to responding to customers who have contacted Uno. Dangerous driving – overcrowding, speeding and customer perceptions of safety on board. Timetable adherence – buses turning up late, skipping stops or not turning up at all. Driver behaviour whilst on duty – unscheduled stops to run personal errands Pricing – student pricing can be more expensive that adult prices on selected routes.

The Students’ Union is committed to working in partnership with Uno Bus and the University to ensure students are represented as we work to resolve these issues. Uno Bus is integral to the whole University community and by addressing the issues highlighted openly and transparently, we can together improve this essential service. Recommendation 6i): In 2013/14, we received a number of Student Ideas raising an issue with Uno Bus. We followed this up and presented a series of recommendations in autumn 14 to the Vice Chancellor Student Union Group (VCSU): 26

•

• •

•

Increased student communications about service improvements – we feel the Open Letters are helpful, but should also feature updates following through suggestions that have been made. Make a customer service charter (or similar organisational values overview) publicly available and specifically publicise this to students and staff. Uno to be invited to attend an upcoming Student Ideas Forum as part of a panel discussion featuring representatives from the University, senior management of Uno and The Uno Board to hear student feedback and for Uno to update students on service improvements – our aim is to enable students to better understand the fuller picture around UNO Bus and where the responsibilities lie for various facets of the bus service within the University community. The Students’ Union has invited Uno be interviewed for Universe following on from the article from Issue 3 of UniVerse (dated 17 November 2014) – this is being coordinated with UH Marcomms. Driver training and recruitment to be reviewed – this has been raised at the Stakeholder meeting, and committed to by Uno. We recommend that as a starting point, the job description on the website could be reconsidered in order to outline from the offset what is expected of Uno Bus drivers. We recommend Uno Bus issue drivers with comment cards in the hope that they will alleviate passenger frustration, diffuse conflict on the buses and help direct students to the right communications channel in order that they can receive feedback on their complaints. We would ultimately hope that this could assist the buses in adhering to timetables as these could relieve potential arguments with passengers The Students’ Union can assist with a campaign promoting the Intalink app. This contains the real-time tracking information for buses, which again may alleviate some passenger frustrations. We have previously recommended a service helpline that mirrors the hours of service. The current helpline is in operation from 8am – 5pm, whereas the buses operational hours are approx. 6am – 3.30am. We strongly support increasing these hours to at least cover the morning and evening rush hour periods.

6b: Parking Changes to the parking provisions on campus are a bye-product of the 2020 campus developments. Students have seen a reduction in the number of available parking spaces on campus and report that what provision there is, including the Park and Ride facility at Angerland is regularly at capacity. Students on the de Havilland Campus raise the lack of student parking which requires them to rely on the Park and Ride. The open text comments in the SU Survey 2013/14 indicate that students find the on campus parking provision expensive, with limited flexibility, some suggest the introduction of free/reduced fee shorter time limit spaces which would be useful to submit assignments or drop off books to the LRC. The Students’ Union has received 26 Student Ideas raising the cost and provision of parking as an issue. The cost of parking is not a recent issue, featuring prominently in the 2012 Student Barometer and apparent in the open text comments of the SU Survey 2013/14 survey.

“Introduce a 30 minute or less free parking ticket so that you don’t pay when you are only there to drop assignments off because it doesn't take that long yet you still have to pay.” (SU Survey 2014) “Parking spaces and charges for daily parking is a problem.” (Pharmacy, Student Barometer 2012) Recommendation 6ii): There appears to be conflicting information about student parking on campus – both in terms of cost and availability. While many of these changes are temporary due to building works, we feel additional student communication or clearer signage about the availability and cost of parking on campus would alleviate many of these issues

7: Social provision/pricing 7a: Cost of living on campus Students indicate across a range of surveys that they find the cost of provisions on campus to be expensive. This refers to both services provided by the University and Students’ Union. This is a long standing issue featuring in the 2012 Student Barometer as well as appearing in the NSS and SU Survey 2013/14 free text comments. Students indicate that the following services are perceived to be overpriced in relation to a ‘student budget’:        

SU shops on both campuses Food Hertfordshire food outlets Club de Havilland Hertfordshire Sports Village On campus parking Forum/EleHouse LRC Printing costs and fines Athletic Union

“Student meal prices are expensive when compared to other places. The change in the bonus card system was absurd. It's now worthless.” (SU Survey, 2014) “The prices in the College Lane SU Shop are higher than what a lot us expected. It can be quite expensive especially for those of us experiencing problems with Student Finance.” (SU Survey 2014) Following on from this, the Students’ Union are planning a complete price review in order to price mark a variety of products in our own outlets. This is to ensure that pricing is competitive and ‘student friendly’ in comparable outlets that students may attend for products or services.

Recommendation 7i): Offer services at a variety of price points to suit various student budgetary restrictions. The Students’ Union is committed to charging fair prices for goods and services, and we believe the University feels the same way. However, we recommend that pricing is reviewed in the following outlets in order to ensure that student-friendly pricing is available: • SU shops on both campuses • Forum/EleHouse • Food Hertfordshire food outlets • Club de Havilland • Hertfordshire Sports Village • On campus parking • LRC printing costs and fines • Athletic Union Where price reductions are not possible, we recommend that alternative value products are offered and promoted effectively.

7b: Social Space on Campus It is clear from the open text comments of the SU Survey 2013/14 that students, whilst satisfied with the current offering, would like to see more provision of social space on the de Havilland campus. The introduction of the Mezzanine in the Atrium has helped reduce the pressures on the de Havilland LRC, however, there is still a demand for additional social space on the campus. There are a considerable range of activities, including alcohol-free for students to get involved with on campus and in the local area including:  Student societies  Volunteering projects  Active Students  Give a Go  Athletic Union sports  Herts Halls League  The Forum Hertfordshire  The EleHouse  Campus Football Whilst there are a range of cross campus events, historically SU activities tend to be focused on the College Lane campus and sport activities focused on the de Havilland Campus, largely as a result of the location of facilities. If students are unaware of what social opportunities there are perhaps more needs to be done to promote these services and opportunities to students. “the de Havilland campus needs more activities for students to participate in, either a second forum to give the campus more social activities, even a proper bar or an EleHouse, the campus needs a lot or improving to be made felt more of a university” (SU Survey, 2014) 29

“More volunteering opportunities / social activities that don't involve alcohol. i.e. trips, walks, etc.” (SU Survey, 2014) Recommendation 7ii): Investigate the possibility of increased social space and social opportunities on de Havilland. With the introduction of the new halls on the College Lane Campus and the increased social space on College Lane (in addition to the new Chapman Lounge, the Oval, Café RØRE and Hutton Hub, the Forum and the EleHouse are continually being invested in to ensure they are market-leading), there is an increased sense that the de Havilland campus does not offer sufficient social space. We recommend that this is considered and addressed in order to ensure students living and studying on both campuses have access to a similar calibre of social spaces, both licenced and non-licenced

8. Student employment within the University Post-graduation student employability rates are something that the University should be proud of and is reflected positively in the Destination of Leavers in Higher Education data and the NSS Development scores. Students have indicated that they would like to see more employment opportunities on campus. Anecdotally, we are aware that students are employed in a range of services, such as: throughout all SU services and in Food Hertfordshire outlets. However, students raise that they would like information about availability of these roles to be better advertised. We currently employ between 180 and 200 students across the Union and always seek to increase this where possible. In addition to this, we operate a student jobs board, listing local part time work that students can apply for. “Offer a greater variety of jobs to students within the university.” (SU Survey 2014) “Have more jobs available for students on campus” (SU Survey 2014) Whilst the Union assumes that recruitment practices are carried out in an open and transparent way, it is unclear how the university advertises its student vacancies. We were unable to identify clear information about how students can apply for roles within the university at the time of producing this report. Hertfordshire Students’ Union has a clear commitment to not offer more than 20 hours of part time work to any one student during term time in order to prevent students working an amount of hours that may impact their studies whilst also maximising the number of student employment opportunities. Recommendation 8i): The Students’ Union employs 180-200 students per year, on average. At this point in time, we are unsure of how many students are employed by the University. We recommend that the University and the Students’ Union both commit to employing students in part-time and temporary roles wherever possible. We also recommend that both the University and the Students’ Union are transparent about advertising part-time roles on campus and share information across services in order to ensure students have access to as much information as possible on how to secure on-campus part-time roles.

Conclusion/Summary 2013-14 saw the University of Hertfordshire and Hertfordshire Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Union achieve its highest scores in the National Student Survey, reflecting the efforts made across the whole institution to improve the student experience however; the student experience is made up of more than just good teaching and learning. A culture of Student Representation does exist at the institution and is improving year on year; however there are still gaps in provision and some areas where students are currently not fully represented. Assessment and Feedback and Organisation and Management are areas where there is significant room for development. The scores for Academic Support and Teaching and Learning, whilst still performing lower than the sector are making improvements. The nonacademic life also contributes considerably with transport and the cost of living on campus heavily influencing the student experience. The implementation of the centralised timetable, whilst having a clear impact, should not detract from historical poor performance in organisation and management. Communication and programme organisation remains a persistent problem as well as cross school working and placement organisation. Linked to this, assessment clustering and promptness of feedback impacts of a studentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s experience. Other areas for development within Assessment and Feedback are the quality and consistency of feedback. The range of social activities on campus is vast, however the promotion of these and accessibility is not as clear as it should be. Social space on de Havilland remains an issue however the pressure on the LRC is reduced following the construction of the mezzanine. Hertfordshire Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Union will continue to present these issues and work with colleagues from across the university to resolve them.

Last Year’s Recommendations - An update and reflection

Recommendation from Hertfordshire Students’ Union 1. In future Hertfordshire Students’ Union needs access to more data including, but not limited to, the Post Graduate Student Surveys and Programme Committee Minutes, to further develop its research and support its findings/recommendatio ns. 2. Module Feedback Questionnaires should be used to improve the student experience.

Lead member of staff AC

Response from the University of Hertfordshire This is agreed. HSU has been provided with access to Programme Committee agendas and minutes through EDRMS. PRES and PTES, and other survey data, will be presented at SEEC and permission will be granted for wider consideration within HSU.

The reversion to a paper-based MFQ should afford higher quality data to inform and enhance the student experience.

Update and Reflection for the Student Experience Report 13-14 Upon reflection, we believe that recommendations 1 and 2 should have been merged. In order for the Students’ Union to be most effective in utilising the research shared by the University we would wish to receive the raw data and analysis from the PTES, PRES, MFQs (excluding confidential lecturer data) Programme Committee Meeting minutes in a formalised and agreed way in order for the University and Students’ Union to be completely transparent with one another. This data will better inform our proposals and enable a forward-thinking, consistent approach for partnership working with the schools of study. At present the Students’ Union receives summary reports from the PTES and PRES surveys through SEEC papers. In the 2013-14 academic year, no Programme Committee minutes were made available to the Students’ Union. Furthermore, we believe that the provision of MFQs to students in a paper format ensured that the feedback from students is more valuable with a higher response rate. The Students’ Union would like to see, or be a part of the formation of, 32

3. The University of Hertfordshire should adopt the ten principles of good feedback practice as detailed in the NUS Assessment and Feedback amnesty briefing paper (http://www.nusconnect. org.uk/asset/news/6010/ Feedback-AmnestyBriefing.pdf).

This has been disseminated to Associate Deans (L&T) and Associate Deans (AQA). It will also be considered at the next meeting of SEEC.

4. The ability to teach in English should be

There is robust peer review – LTI or Andrew would have to comment on whether this includes looking

any subsequent action plans following the above surveys, in order that we can work with them to further improve the student experience. At SEEC (28 January 2014), the NUS Assessment and Feedback Benchmarking Tool (including the 10 principles of good feedback) were agreed upon by its members. This is a real step forward in improving assessment and feedback for students. However, following from these minutes Dr John Alltree was actioned to conduct a mapping exercise/gap analysis of existing principles of good practice. With Dr Alltree’s retirement earlier this year, we feel as though this may have fallen through the gaps as this work hasn’t yet been completed. The Students’ Union believe that undertaking a full assessment and feedback review across all schools will be an incredibly valuable piece of work on behalf of the institution and we would recommend that this work still goes ahead in line with the gap analysis actioned to Dr Alltree in January 2014. Although it is recognised that currently there is an audit of the 4 week turnaround of feedback underway, which is a positive step, we believe the review of assessment and feedback should be expanded in line with the Recommendation 2 in the Student Experience Report 2014. We look forward to seeing the results of the audit of effectiveness in the HR process in Easter 2015 33

assessed at appointment, and monitored throughout employment via a robust peer review system.

5. In certain subjects where anonymous marking is not possible a tutor should be appointed for support but should have no involvement in marking.

at English language ability. A great deal of work was put into developing further guidance for academic recruitment last year and a How To guide is being developed. This should be available in the early new year and includes guidance on assessing English language.

NH update e- New guidance on the use of presentations (to determine the ability to teach in English) in selection decisions has been drafted and is being used in recruitment training. HR are going to undertake an audit of the effectiveness of presentations in selection decisions by Easter 2015. There is a local induction audit being undertaken by HR over the coming months – this will assess how decisions about development following appointment are made and followed through The University would wish to see how anonymous marking is received and implemented across the institution from 2014 onwards before making commitments to additional marking systems.

and the Students’ Union would be happy to work with HR to develop the processes if this is appropriate, after the results are released. We are still unsure if the peer reviews include an English language assessment, therefore some clarification on this aspect of the recommendation would be appreciated. We believe that English language ability should still be included in the peer reviews therefore once the “How To” guide on how to assess English language has been released in the new year; we would hope that this recommendation can be taken forward in conjunction with the LTIC (see Recommendation 4i).

The Students’ Union recognises that the University has approved a commitment to anonymous marking. Along with the reflection for point 3, it would be useful to see a review of the implementation of anonymous marking included within a full assessment and feedback review. It would be useful to note where anonymous marking has been comprehensively adopted and where there might be difficulties in adopting this fully. By highlighting where there might be issues with anonymous marking, we would recommend a working group be established with at least 50% 34

6. A working party should be established to review feedback at the institution comprising of 50% staff and 50% students. 7. Review the four week period of feedback with a view to shortening it.

The University would welcome a fuller proposal either from HSU or jointly prepared between HSU and the Director of Learning and Teaching to be considered at a SEEC meeting.

8. Establish an ‘internal OFSTED’ to inspect academic schools against a rigorous set of agreed criterion.

The University is working towards and would wish to see compliance across all schools and programmes with the four week turnaround on coursework before considering a further reduction in turnaround times. The University has made use of ‘panels’ of external experts in the past to review and support the work of particular programmes. This will be reviewed in the context of the current NSS action plans and the outcomes of NSS 2014.

students to identify where alternative arrangements are needed and what these might be in practice. We hope that this and any subsequent working groups will aim to include 50% students in line with Recommendation 2 in the Student Experience Report 2014.

We believe the review in line with Recommendation 2 should consider reducing the permitted time for feedback to 15 university working days. Upon reflection, the Students’ Union realise this recommendation used very emotive language and on reflection we would phrase this differently. However the principle of this recommendation was to ensure that for schools that consistently underperform, there is a support network providing them with expert guidance to resolve issues as effectively as possible. The Students’ Union still stands by the principle of this recommendation. However, we are keen to further develop relationship with each school as this has proven highly beneficial. We would recommend that representatives from the SU are invited to attend School Academic Committees and other senior school committees/meetings to embed the relationship at school level, with the 35

9. The University should be more transparent when communicating with students about why changes happen. 10. A member of staff should be appointed to deal with student communications.

AC/JN

Marketing and Communications are working more closely with the PVC Student Experience and have identified someone with particular responsibility for Student Communications.

Marketing and Communications have identified someone with particular responsibility for Student Communications.

11. Information Hertfordshire should make noise management their number one priority by: a. Reconsidering the layout of both Learning Resource

DF update - The following activities have taken place to address this issue, particularly focussing on de Havilland LRC where the situation had been worse.  Reviewed the designated enclosed silent study suites in each LRC (with 250+ seats at deH). Introduced restricted access to some Silent Study LRCs with zero tolerance and withdrawal of access rights if breached.  Silent study monitors are employed in April-May

aim of continuous improvement and the development of initiatives at a school level focused on improving the student experience. We feel by localising the relationship outside of the current committee meetings (For example, CEG, Academic Board, SEEC and ASAC) the schools will strengthen the relationship between students, the Students Union and schools. The Students’ Union has seen, especially from the NSS comments, that communication with students continues to be an issue. Having considered this further, we believe that whilst there are still improvements that can be made at a University level, the emphasis needs to be at a school level. We are pleased that under the MarComms restructure, the Head of Internal Communications now includes student communication as part of their role. However this is responsible for communications at a university level. We feel that here remains a gap at programme level in line with Recommendation 3. With the recent responses to VCSU from David Ford, the Students’ Union are delighted that so many positive changes are being made throughout IH. For the best part of a year, this information was not provided to the SU, hence our continued pursuance of this matter through VCSU. We now look forward to continuing this positive relationship with David and his team.

Centres b. Reviewing their communications and signage c. Reviewing staff responsibilities in dealing with noise levels

12. Information Hertfordshire should review where books are allocated, taking into account where courses are delivered.

13. Information Hertfordshire should donate a proportion of fine revenue to the Union’s charitable fund raising activities

over exam period (with a mixed reaction from students – sometimes very negative)  Increased number of computers in silent study at deH to 50% of seats in response to student feedback  Improved notices and directions for silent study at entrance to LRCs, and published LRC standards clearly displayed and on StudyNet  Atrium Mezzanine at deH as social / informal space with Wi-Fi and printing, which has relieved some of the issues.  The analysis of the NSS 2013 comments shows 117 positive comments about LRC facilities and services and 162 negative; of which 20 mention noise and overcrowding. BY NSS 2014, we had 153 positive comments about LRC facilities and 38 negative, of which only 11 mention noise. So it would appear that this issue is reducing considerably with the actions taken. DF update - All the journal collections are online (30,000 titles) and some 300,000 eBooks, so these are available anytime, anywhere. The printed books are organised into subject collections and their locations are aligned with School locations. But they are available to and used by courses. DF update - Fines are an incentive for books to be returned, so that others can use them – if books are returned or renewed on time, there would be no fine income. The income is invested in the further purchase of books. By redirecting fine income to another area, this would reduce the

In terms of donating a proportion of book fines to RAG, the SU now understand that this is not possible due to the reinvestment of such income into library resources. Having said this, the SU recommend that a review of the book loans system commences in order that it reflects a fair process to all students. Lastly, we would like to re-emphasise the need for a student email address to be re-established by the university. The current cohort of students have not had use of a University email address and therefore this is not actively sought by the current student population. However, there have been numerous cases through the Student Ideas Forum and the Question of the Week initiative where students have expressed that a student email address would be beneficial to their student experience. Through the work of the Communication and Collaboration Project group, we hope that student email addresses will be considered and implemented in addition to a variety of other communication methods that will allow students to be contacted as they feel best appropriate to their needs.

supported by RaG.

number of books bought each year, which would appear to be counter-productive to the aim of increasing book availability.

14. Planned IH maintenance work should be undertaken outside of peak times, e.g. in the summer vacation. Signage should be improved around maintenance areas to explain why the maintenance work being undertaken and when this will be completed. 15. The University should establish a modern, fit for purpose email system using an external provider if necessary.

16. The University should maintain 24 hour access to both Learning Resource Centres.

DF update - As much as possible is planned outside of peak and term times, but it is not possible to schedule all work in what is now only about a month between resits and Clearing. The University has a regular agreed ‘at risk’ time on Friday mornings from 07.00-10.00 when work is scheduled. Prior notice is given to students and staff of the services affected and notices are posted on StudyNet and in LRCs to explain the work. We are not aware of any comments about this in the current NSS 2014. DF update - The University has already agreed to review the position by mid 2014-2015. Please also refer to the information about student email on StudyNet. A new project is being initiated this year on Communication and Collaboration, which will include the review of the student email provision. No comments have been made in the 2014 NSS about this area – this will be the last cohort who used the previous student email system in their first year. DF update e- This has been in place since 1997 & 2003 respectively and is highly valued by students (see Appendix 1 - NSS 2013 positive comments). There are no plans to change this.

17. The Weston Auditorium should be used for teaching to reduce the pressure on large lecture theatres. 18. Review the priority of building works to prioritise investment in suitable teaching rooms.

DF update - Some teaching does take place in the Auditorium when appropriate and bookings allow.

Over the summer we carried out a review of the master plan (2020 Estates Vision) and presented four options for consultation / comment. The outcome of this is that the board have approved option two which prioritises the new teaching building as the next major project after the science building. Ian Grimes has written to Michael Gillett asking if he is aware of any specific areas where, from a student perspective, investment is required. Ian will take this forward with Michael.

We are pleased that Andrew May agreed to a walk around with two of our Elected Officers and the CEO of the Studentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Union. There has been a recognition that some of the older buildings require significant investment in the medium term, especially in the Wright Building. In addition, the Deputy VC has sponsored a project to investigate the 21st Century classroom.

AM update - The action is green as this has been completed as part of the 2020 Estates Vision review carried out in late 2013.