STUDENT COVID REVIEW Introduction It is no question that since the beginning of the pandemic, students feel they have been ignored on a national level, and at best been an afterthought of any government guidance regarding Covid-19. Additionally, given the timing of the NSS, students at the University of Reading were given no official platform to give feedback beyond e-mailing RUSU Officers or University Staff in order to voice their concerns. RUSU decided that it was incredibly important to survey students regarding: the delivery of their course, the response of the university & schools to the initial outbreak, the delivery and processing of exam results in the summer and other areas which may have been affected. We also decided that it was necessary to understand the quality of the restart of teaching and (where relevant) the return to campus. Finally, in order to help contribute to the national conversation and give students a platform to voice their concerns, we asked about the recent student experience being value for money. Pre-note It’s important to recognise that the scenario the UK was faced with in March, and that in deciding a response to Covid19, there was no national standard for Higher Education and incredibly minimal (and belated) government guidance on how to best handle the situation. Efforts of staff across the university should be recognised and applauded, even where opinion may be more critical. Methodology In order to gather as much feedback as possible, we focused on maintaining brevity throughout the whole survey. This also minimised any drop-out throughout the survey from students who might have found the process too tedious or wouldn’t otherwise have time to complete it, further confirmed by the 79% completion rate Bearing this in mind, we decided to use a Likert Scale, compromising of: - Very Dissatisfied - Dissatisfied - Neutral - Satisfied - Very Satisfied The option of ‘Neutral’ was also included, as we predicted some students feeling indifferent towards what the questions were asking was an appropriate answer given the unstable situation the world has been faced with. Additionally, as the survey was open to all students including those beginning their first year, we added ‘Not applicable’ to the bottom of each question where the student would not be able to provide an informed answer. 1
A total of 588 students completed the survey in a three week period between Monday 5th October – Sunday 25th October. Demographic Data Questions asked regarding any demographics was what year of study the participant was in at time of completion of the survey and what course the student studied. This was to maintain brevity to maximise engagement, and given that we were asking for opinions centred around university decisions, we deemed it less necessary to collect demographic data to understand whether certain students were disproportionally affected, although further investigation on this matter would be useful to explore. Below is a breakdown of students based on year group. Year
Foundation Year Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Year 4
Masters
Count %
9 1.53%
161 27.38 %
139 23.64 %
50 8.50 %
63 10.71%
133 22.62 %
PhD Year 1 9 1.53 %
PhD Year 2+ 15 2.55 %
Graduate 9 1.53%
Course data was withheld to keep this report concise and can be requested. Questions & Results 1. How satisfied were you with the University’s initial decisions in response to Covid19? (Table 1.1) Satisfaction Very Satisfied Neutral Dissatisfied Very Not Satisfied Dissatisfied applicable %
7.31%
28.91%
19.05%
21.94%
12.07%
10.71%
2. How satisfied were you with the University’s communication about these decisions? (Table 1.2) Satisfaction Very Satisfied Neutral Satisfied % 12.41% 24.15% 18.71%
Dissatisfied Very Not Dissatisfied applicable 21.60% 13.44% 9.69%
3. How satisfied were you with the response of your school regarding the impact of Covid19 in relation to the delivery of your course? (e.g Lectures, Meetings with Supervisors, etc) (Table 1.3) Satisfaction Very Satisfied Neutral Satisfied % 12.24% 29.08% 18.88%
Dissatisfied Very Not Dissatisfied applicable 19.05% 9.86% 10.88%
2
4. How satisfied were you with the take-home exam format, considering this as a replacement for in-person exams? (Table 1.4) Satisfaction Very Satisfied Neutral Satisfied % 21.43% 26.02% 11.56%
Dissatisfied Very Not Dissatisfied applicable 6.12% 3.74% 31.12%
5. How satisfied were you with the processing of your results after the summer term? (Table 1.5) Satisfaction Very Satisfied Neutral Satisfied % 9.52% 18.88% 15.65%
Dissatisfied Very Not Dissatisfied applicable 14.80% 10.71% 30.44%
6. How satisfied are you with the communication on the return to campus and inperson teaching (e.g Timetabling, etc)? (Table 1.6) Satisfaction Very Satisfied Neutral Satisfied % 8.84% 24.32% 22.79%
Dissatisfied Very Not Dissatisfied applicable 24.66% 15.99% 3.40%
7. How satisfied are you with the quality, engagement and content of teaching being given online? (Table 1.7) Satisfaction Very Satisfied Neutral Satisfied % 12.24% 35.71% 23.13%
Dissatisfied Very Not Dissatisfied applicable 15.82% 8.33% 4.76%
8. How satisfied are you with on-campus facilities that are available? (Table 1.8) Satisfaction Very Satisfied Neutral Satisfied % 8.67% 30.78% 25.68%
Dissatisfied Very Not Dissatisfied applicable 13.27% 8.16% 13.44%
9. How satisfied are you with the facilities that are now available online? (e.g Counselling, Support, Careers)? (Table 1.9) Satisfaction Very Satisfied Neutral Satisfied % 10.88% 28.74% 34.69%
Dissatisfied Very Not Dissatisfied applicable 7.31% 3.06% 15.31%
10. How satisfied are you that the recent student experience is value for money? (Table 1.10)
3
Satisfaction Very Satisfied Neutral Satisfied % 3.23% 6.97% 12.76%
Dissatisfied Very Not Dissatisfied applicable 27.21% 46.60% 3.23%
Areas of Note Having evaluated the results, key areas which student opinion focused on, especially with text comments, have been outlined and elaborated on. Quotes have been included that best represent the most prominent perspectives. Value for Money and relationship to other questions
Value for Money: How satisfied are you that the recent student experience is value for money? 50% 45%
47%
40% 35% 30% 25%
27%
20% 15% 10% 5% 0%
13% 3%
7%
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
3% Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very Not applicable Dissatisfied
The response regarding value for money showed substantial sentiment aimed at the recent student experience not being value for money. This wasn’t seen to be a huge surprise, given recent media coverage showing images of students in lockdown with “9k for what” articulated on windows of halls across the country. Additionally, many of the text comments received point towards the reduced face-to-face teaching being the primary issue. This makes creating recommendations difficult given that the barrier to this is Covid19 & governments guidelines, and not much can be done on a local level. Below is 6 quotes of feedback from students which constructively surmise sentiment regarding value for money. -
“I don’t think the current way courses are being taught is value for money (£9250/ year). I do think it’s a wider problem than Reading, but it does include Reading. This form of teaching does not meet standards that you would expect for the full fees.”
4
-
“I studied with OU [Open University] prior to Reading. It was better value for money, tutors knew what they were doing with software as had training and tuition fees were lower.”
-
“Not the same (online) to generate discussion and increase more in depth understanding of topics. Also, limited access to library (can’t peruse books to find out which are most relevant). Hard to network with peers so impacts learning.”
-
“Half the experience so feel that a reduction in fees would be relevant but again understandable as the university probably needs it to help put the new measures in place.”
-
“As a masters student, the networking and extra-curricular talks and connections are a really important part of university life, and why I chose to come to Reading rather take an Open University degree. Finding that ‘added value’ online will be challenging.”
-
“I am a third year biochem student who cannot use the labs at all. All my studies are online it’s basically the OU which charges £2500.”
The clear issue is that an element of university is missing, whether this be: labs & additional teaching spaces, the library, networking, extra-curricular, etc. One of the quote mentions “added value” which brings forward the question, what can be done to improve the student experience to make up for these missing elements? One recommendation put forward is that a large focus needs to put on promoting student community outside of the classroom, in addition to ensuring that online events are up to the standard of physical ones as much as possible. We recognise our responsibility in promoting student community and potentially see more collaborative efforts as a means forward.
Communication 5
Uni Comms: How satisfied were you with the University’s communication about these decisions? 30% 25% 24%
20%
19%
15% 10%
22% 13%
12%
10%
5% 0%
Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
Very Not applicable Dissatisfied
NB: “These decisions” references the response to Covid19 clearly, and makes better sense in the flow of the original survey. Student opinion made it apparent that communication regarding the return to campus and initial response to Covid-19 that led to campus being shut, was leaning towards a more negative sentiment. Specific to Question 2, “How satisfied were you with the University’s communication about these decisions?”, 36.62% of students answered that they were Satisfied or Very Satisfied, versus 35.1% who answered that they were Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. Text comments regarding this question point towards the lack of guidance from the government making it difficult to inform decision-making. However, for any communication that did go out comment regarding this consisted of statements akin to: -
“Regular emails were good, but not always clearly worded.”
-
“I don’t feel enough information was given”
-
“Send the occasional long update email that didn’t contain much actual substance.”
-
“Only a few emails sent to all students, very little communication from lecturers.”
-
“Unclear and changing opinions on safety net policy etc.”
Question 6 also asked for student opinion on the same themes, except this time centred around the return to campus. 33.05% were either Satisfied or Very Satisfied versus 40.71% being either Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. Text comments provided lean substantially towards negative responses. An overarching theme present is also the timing of Timetables being released, with some students not 6
receiving theirs the Friday before teaching commencing. Second to that, a large focus is on the presentation/communication of pre-recorded lectures and seminars. Given that students were under the impression of a blended approach, but didn’t have a tangible idea of whether in-person or online would be more prominent, this left decision-making around accommodation unclear for many. -
“Unsurprised that things are online but frustrating to have had such an emphasis on ‘blended’ learning when in reality it’s only 2-3 in-person seminars a week. Also confusing to figure out which timetabled sessions apply to you.”
-
“I think that whilst certain things have been very clearly communicated, others have not. An example of this is the fact that certain lectures are prerecorded, and are therefore not timetabled, and where this isn’t clear, I have become behind without realising it!”
-
“Doesn’t feel like it was worth it, to come to campus, the ‘blended approach’ talked about before coming back to uni was vague and in reality my whole course is online with very few interactive sessions.”
-
“If you keep up with your emails, which you should, then there is nothing to complain about here.”
How best to remedy this particular issue for a quick win would be to communicate what students have to do (regarding Teaching & Learning) in one format, rather than piecing together information from multiple sources. We recognise that those involved in creating the Timetable were under an immense additional workload in order to ensure flexibility was available to students, therefore a plan to ensure those organising it are best supported could be beneficial. Regarding mass updates on how the university functions, when sending out communications students are far more appreciative of clear, well explained decisions as opposed to more open-ended correspondence. The risk that is apparent here is that in cases where the wrong decision is made, being explicit in what was decided means it’s more difficult to backtrack without giving the impression of mass disorganisation.
Academic Alterations 7
Take-home Exams
Exam format: How satisfied were you with the take-home exam format, considering this as a replacement for in-person exams? 35% 30%
31%
25% 20%
26% 21%
15% 10%
12%
5% 0%
6% Very Satisfied
Satisfied
Neutral
Dissatisfied
4% Very Not applicable Dissatisfied
More positively, student feedback over different delivery methods of learning and assessments was quite positive. Question 4 asking about the take-home exam format found 47.45% of students were either Satisfied or Very Satisfied versus 9.86% of students being either Dissatisfied or Very Dissatisfied. A large portion remains Not applicable, which most likely takes into account students doing entirely coursework, and having no exam assessment. Text comments are centred around the flexibility of the format relieving a lot of stress and anxieties at the time. Some students have reflected that this method may have caused grade inflation, although there seems to be no consistent message as to whether this was liked or disliked by students. -
“Should always be an option I think. As a DAS student, this took away a lot of pressure and think my results reflected my work that I have put in rather than my memory skills.”
-
“I really liked it as it was a considerably less stressful environment than inperson exams, please make it a regular thing!!”
-
“Most of my exams were fine. One of them was literally typed up by the teacher in Word a few days beforehand. It was riddled with spelling errors and the whole class had issues with it. It was extremely stressful for me and others and absolutely unprofessional.”
-
“I did feel satisfied with take-home exams and the good compensation given for exams – although I know this wasn’t consistent across my friends.” 8
-
“Technical issue meant that I could not compete one of my assessments.”
-
“The University did a good job at arranging the exam but ensuring the exam was returned correctly was stressful and it was far harder to concentrate at home.”
A particular group of students this seemed to benefit were ones affected by disabilities or would be registered with DAS. The significantly less “intense” atmosphere of take-home exams versus face-to-face ones alongside being openbook hopefully prevented stress from making any ailments worse during the examination (although further feedback in this area would be beneficial to draw better conclusions). Comment over IT issues was also unexpected. Students outlined that the process of handing their answer in was stressful in piecing together instructions, which was only further exacerbated by any technical difficulties experienced by students on a local level or Blackboard level. Recommendations regarding how best to improve an area which already received good feedback would be ensuring that the process to hand in exams is straightforward. This minor point should serve to highlight how well this piece of mitigation went. Safety Net The safety policy proved to be one of the most contentious issues for students in the summer. This area in particular wasn’t helped by the multiple approaches being taken by universities across the country. However, despite not asking a question about the policy specifically, any text comment that appeared conveyed a negative sentiment. It was hinted at earlier that communication over the safety net also confusing and unclear, most likely to students that read the University would not be adopting such an approach, only to then receive an email saying a safety net policy would be used. We understand that student concern had a substantial impact on the decision-making within this area, which would have contributed to the confusion over communications. From text comments in Question 1. - “The university was very slow to react towards ceasing lectures in comparison to other universities as well as much uncertainty regarding assessments and the safety net policy.” -
“The ‘module safety net’ was inadequate, as it only covered a single one of my modules. This may put some students at a disadvantage when competing for jobs with students whose universities implemented a more robust safety net system”.
-
‘Unfair that not all students would benefit from the safety net.”
From text comments in Question 2. 9
-
“Uni took a long time to actually put a safety net in place. It took students coming together and complaining about the lack of support from the uni for the uni to get their act together, otherwise I don’t think the uni would have actually put in place the safety net.”
-
“Unclear and also partly unjustified, especially for the safety net only applying to certain modules, which helped some degrees more than others. Brilliant idea, but applied unfairly. Communication from uni caused more stress and frustration rather than anything else.”
From text comments in Question 4. - “Online exams worked well. Only 1 or 2 of my modules was covered by the university safety net policy. Big difference depending on the course you do.” Understanding lessons learned from this area is more difficult than others, especially due to external factors, such other institutions approach to no detriment. Going forwards, implementing mitigation should have student consultation from multiple sources in order to ensure a policy that can cover anyone disadvantaged by extreme scenarios (such as a pandemic). Students that were correctly covered by the safety net were satisfied with its benefit, although there is also sentiment expressed that it wasn’t applied correctly for a significant proportion of students, causing further frustration and distress. Limitations It should be noted that there was an intention to obtain Graduate representation for the survey. Unfortunately, due to IT issues shared between RUSU and the University regarding SSO (Single-Sign On) and account data, we were unable to create a feasible means for this group to complete the survey. Those that did contribute were still included. Conclusion To reiterate, the UK was faced with an incredibly fast-paced, developing situation which created pressure for all areas. This report is not intended to disparage any efforts and decisions made, but rather highlight where it can be improved. At times, students have seen communications missing the mark in terms of what information they want to hear, especially during times of crisis. A balance needs to be struck in giving students as much information as possible, without eliminating the possibility of going back and changing decisions where it doesn’t work. This approach should be encouraged, as it’s received better where decisions that haven’t worked are changed to the benefit of the student. The teaching delivery and take-home exam format have been two successful policies, and it’s positive to see this snapshot of students recognising that. Lessons 10
learned from the safety net/no-detriment policy should inform future decisions, with focused efforts on ensuring all students have some form of mitigation in the time of national crisis. Any proportion of student being “left behind” should be avoided. Value for Money is going to remain a contentious issue until greater policy change at national level occurs. It’s important to recognise that this is an issue at the forefront of student’s minds, especially now more than ever given the dramatic change to the student experience. In order to avoid negative sentiment, students need to clearly see first-hand what is being done to make their time at university as beneficial as possible.
11