Student Written Submission

SOAS Quality Assurance Assessment 2012 STUDENT WRITTEN SUBMISSION Co-President of Welfare and Education Alex Fulton

December 2012

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS Preface...................................................................................................... 3 1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE BODY.......4 2. HOW EFFECTIVELY HAS THE INSTITUTION ADDRESSED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ITS LAST AUDITS/REVIEWS...................6 3. HOW EFFECTIVELY THE INSTITUTION MAINTAINS THE THRESHOLD STANDARDS OF ITS ACADEMIC AWARDS................7 4. HOW EFFECTIVELY DOES THE INSTITUTION MANAGE THE QUALITY OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES?......10 5.

HOW EFFECTIVELY THE INSTITUTION MANAGES THE QUALITY OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT IT PROVIDES, INCLUDING THAT FOR STUDENTS AND APPLICANTS...................21

6.

THE INSTITUTIONS ENHANCEMENT OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES..................................................................................23

7.

THEMATIC ELEMENT OF REVIEW: STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT..............................24

APPENDICES:

2

PREFACE From the time I took up office as Co-President Welfare and Education, and in turn inherited the role of Lead Student Representative, work on the Student Written Submission has shown itself to be a wonderful opportunity, allowing for a real platform to be given to understanding student engagement with and experience of academic life at SOAS. In being a relatively small, specialist university, SOAS faces its own unique issues regarding the student experience, and it is key that as an institution these are tackled head on. This is especially pertinent now that the School has been granted Degree Awarding Powers, relying more on the soundness of internal structures. With this in mind, the SWS and SED provide a unique opportunity to work through these existing issues while highlighting what makes SOAS an admirable academic institution.

Students come to SOAS to study current and stimulating research regarding areas we as an institution feel passionately about. The consensus from the student body seems to praise this research informed teaching; however, improvements can be made when considering the wider academic experience. Namely in the areas of academic support alongside wider administrative and communicative concerns. While there has recently been much work done by the school to put systems in place to better these areas of concern, there seems to be a pervading culture that counteracts such systems.

With this in mind, the QAA Process has brought both positive practices and areas that are in need of improvement not only to the attention of the Students’ Union, but also to the wider student body and the School itself. It is our hope that this form of communication will continue throughout the year, making the academic experience at SOAS even more fulfilling and exhilarating than it already is.

3

1. INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDENT REPRESENTATIVE BODY SOAS Students’ Union is one that strives to be active, challenging and diverse; holding within itself the core values of ‘promoting the interests and welfare of Students at SOAS, while being ‘the recognised representative channel between Students and the School (SOAS) and any other external bodies’1. The representative body is made up of three full-time sabbatical officers and seventeen part-time officers. One General Manager, one representation assistant, and two parttime administration staff support this body. The Students’ Union also run a shop and a bar that are handled by Union employed managers.

Each of the Union Officers are elected through a cross-campus ballot, and in this are mandated to represent the student body on the Union Executive Committee and Trustee Board2. It is also the role of the part-time and sabbatical officers to sit on certain School committees3, which is indicative of the strong working relationship between the School and the Students’ Union.

Working in partnership, the School and the Students’ Union facilitate the Student Rep system, which exists at both the Department and Faculty levels4 making effective Student contribution to Quality Assurance possible.

METHODOLOGY In preparation for the QAA Institutional Review, the Union chose Co-President of Welfare and Education, Alex Fulton, to take up the role of Lead Student Representative (LSR). In this, Miss Fulton was the student representative on the QAA Institutional Review Steering Group and conducted the writing of the Student Written Submission (SWS). In guiding the direction of the SWS there were sincere moves on part of both the School and the Students’ Union to work closely together, ensuring that the submissions were in conversation with one another.

In addition to working with the School, there were also moves made throughout the process to keep students and student representatives at the heart of it, with feedback from both of these sides being the backbone of the submission5 . This was done through having a discussions during the Student Representative Training at the beginning of the academic year, which engaged over half of the student representatives with both the process of the review and the issues at hand[ibid.]. The wider student body was also consulted through a variety of methods including focus group meetings, having QAA Hub for open comments in the Junior Common Room (JCR), and contacting all students throughout the process through all-student emails as well as through the Student Union Website. As a point of reflection, although great effort was made to contact students, the focus group meetings were not attended well, with the average

1

SED 260

2

SOAS Students’ Union Constitution: http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3878129/2009_08_ModelConstitution%20SOAS%20post%20Trustee%20Meeting.pdf 3

SED 069

4

SED 114

5

Appendix 1 - Outcomes of Student Rep Training.

4

attendance being 4-5 people. Despite this, there were a great number of open comments given through the ‘QAA Hub’ as well as through e-mail responses, which represent a wide variety of the student body6.

In writing the document a decision was made to mirror the Self Evaluation Document by following prompts from the QAA guidance. In this, it is hoped that it will be easy for the two documents to read in tandem. Any areas of the questionnaire that do not directly affect students, or where students have expressed no opinion on will therefore be left blank. Whilst the intention is to be fair and balanced in this report, it is only natural that any process of obtaining student feedback may potentially accentuate the negative. We therefore made a deliberate effort in information gathering to get positive feedback and succeeded in this as can be seen in the Appendices.

For ease of notation, where this document references a piece of evidence already in the School’s SED we we note it in the footnotes as SED and their reference number.

6

Appendix 1, 2 & 3.

5

2. HOW EFFECTIVELY HAS THE INSTITUTION ADDRESSED THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF ITS LAST AUDITS/REVIEWS In the time since the last Institutional Review in March 2007, the School has undertaken much work to ensure its effective approach to Quality Assurance. This work, in many cases, responds to the recommendations found in the School’s last QAA Institutional Review. The School’s Self Evaluation Document (SED), considers these responses in detail. While the Student Written Submission (SWS) hopes to highlight these improvements in the body of the report, we also wish to illuminate that which is in need of further improvement.

Though the areas listed below have improved greatly since the last review, and in many cases are areas of good practice, it is the hope that through the SWS an even greater improvement can be accomplished. It is the opinion of the Students’ Union in highlighting these areas as ones in need of greater improvement, the quality of academic experienced by students at SOAS will improve greatly and opportunities for student involvement in enhancement of this experience will be increased. ●

Establish and monitor threshold requirements for academic support systems for students

●

Ensure systematic implication [of] monitoring requirements of peer observation of teaching, as agreed by Learning and Teaching Policy Committee, staff review, and the mentoring and training of new members of staff

●

Ensure that students are made aware of the outcomes of course programme evaluations

●

Develop systematic mechanisms disseminating good practice

for

routinely

and

effectively

identifying

and

While these points are highlighted here, they will be dealt with in both the Quality and Standards sections of the document.

6

3.HOW EFFECTIVELY THE INSTITUTION MAINTAINS THE THRESHOLD STANDARDS OF ITS ACADEMIC AWARDS 3.1 Each qualification (including those awarded under collaborative arrangements) is allocated to the appropriate level in the Framework for Higher Education Qualifications The SED deals with this in great detail, and we agreed that the school is working within University of London Regulations.7 As having been recently given Degree Awarding Powers, the school will have to keep these qualification regulations under increased scrutiny.

In the University of London structure, there have been issues regarding students undertaking joint degrees between SOAS and other University of London Institutions. While these incidents are rare, we would like to note that communication between these institutions is at times difficult, which has the potential to put students in disadvantageous situations.

3.2 Use of external examiners is strong and scrupulous The use of External Examiners is supported by and embedded within the School’s procedures and systems and is key to validating the fairness of awards given to students. ● While the findings of external examiners is looked at in depth by the School, the student awareness of the External Examination process and the resultant findings is relatively low8. This lack of awareness has the potential to lead to confusion on the students part as to how exams results are validated, resulting in more examination queries, appeals and lack of trust within departments. This issue is re-enforced due to a lack of examination feedback, something which is a Students’ Union Education Priority.9 ● In line with the revised Quality Code, Visiting Examiners reports have recently been made available to all students on the BLE which is a development we welcome. It is our hope that this will help increase students understanding of assessment criteria, and in turn aid in the engagement of students in Quality Assurance and Enhancement.

3.3 Design, approval, monitoring and review of assessment strategies is effective in ensuring that students have the opportunity to demonstrate learning outcomes of the awards ●

Students are not directly involved in the process of design of assessment strategies in the current system. Within department meetings and the committee structure student representatives have some limited engagement in the approval process, and through course feedback forms all students have the opportunity to be involved in the monitoring

7

SED 047

8

Appendix 3: Open Comments. Also see Conversation between SU and Anthropology Department: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3878129/SOAS%20Mail%20%20Fwd_%20____SOAS%20ANTHRO%20CONCERNS%20PLEASE%20READ____.pdf 9

SED 119

7

●

●

and review of these assessment strategies. However, we believe that there is a break in the feedback loop when it comes to such monitoring and review processes, as often the actions taken on this feedback are not reported back to students effectively. There is also the issue that this feedback takes place annually rather than as a meaningful and ongoing process, inherently hindering continuous student engagement, and in turn the enhancement of these processes.

Despite this, Student action via their representatives has been effective. This is evident in the changing of the weighting of assessment in course over recent years due to pressure from student representatives, a good example of the School acting on student feedback in this area10.

However, in focus groups, the main points raised regarding assessment were that the School relies too much on heavily weighted, unseen examinations and essay-based coursework11. Where there are areas of good practice within the School where wider assessment and innovation are used 12 , we should encourage and spread this good practice and make moves to have students involved in the design of assessment strategies.

3.4 Design, approval, monitoring and review of programmes enables standards to be set and maintained, and allows students to demonstrate the learning outcomes of the award ● Again, students are not directly involved in the process of design of programmes in the current system. Within department meetings and the committee structure student reps have some limited engagement in the approval process, and through course feedback forms all students are involved in the monitoring and review of courses. Students are also involved in the Periodic Programme Review (PPR) where their feedback is central to the monitoring process. ● While this was not an area that greatly concerned most students in the focus groups, there are some areas where there is concern in programme design. In the study of languages students reported that after their year abroad they felt there was not effective means for further language study in their final year in comparison with other languages.

While these comments were not widespread, more investigation might prove beneficial for enhancement.

‘Very limited language options for final year students [in Swahili]. (e.g. Last year compulsory, translation, grammar, oral, reading and writing, etc.). / Currently only have 2 hours contact time and was refused after requesting to audit despite being title of my degree).

10

For example compare Anthropology weighting 2009 with 2010.

11

Appendix 2: Focus Group Minutes & Appendix 3: Open Comments

12

LTQC 12/12/12 Paper: APR (Languages and Cultures) https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3878129/D%20%20UG%20APR%20Report%20%5BLanguages%20and%20Cultures%5D.pdf

8

African Languages are not taken as seriously as other languages at SOAS. Demonstrated by comparative lack of contact time and department and expectations. Compare Arabic and Swahili, for example.’

Swahili, BA 13

●

In addition to this, in regards to research, it was raised that comparing the SOAS Research Degree between subject areas showed a large variation in programme design, particularly within the first year of the MPhil. Whilst it was appreciated that a research degree is by definition one of individual study, Art and Archeology have a quite detailed structure of support study, whereas other departments rely almost solely on supervisor meetings 14 . We would like to recommend the level of support found in the Art & Archaeology structure as good practice within the School.

3.5 Subject benchmark statements are used effectively in program design, approval, delivery and review to inform standards of awards ● This was not an area for concern for students. We appreciate the difficulty SOAS has in this, considering there are subjects studied at SOAS where there are no benchmarks as they are unique to UK Higher Education.

13

Appendix 3: Open Comments

14

Appendix 2: Research Focus Group

9

4. HOW EFFECTIVELY DOES THE INSTITUTION MANAGE THE QUALITY OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES? 4.1 Professional standards for teaching and support of learning are supported ● The Students’ Union recognises the School’s work in this area, particularly the following highlighted in the SED: -Teacher training courses offered by the ADD --Directors Teaching Prize -Graduate Teaching Assistants have a mandatory three day teacher training accredited by the HEA -Mentoring programme for new staff, though we are not confident this is being monitored effectively ● However, though progress has been made, we wish to highlight the gaps in support that centre around support of learning outside of lecture-style teaching. While SOAS continually rates highly on the quality of Research Informed Teaching15, our position as a Research Intensive University can cause issues regarding the priority of teaching and support within the institution. One prevalent concern raised by students was regarding the continuation of teaching through academic support outside of designated teaching hours and, in this, the availability of their academics and tutors16. 17 ‘

Tutors should be paid for extra hours so they are more willing to dedicate work to the students’ Anthropology and Development, BA ●

●

Due to a lack of standardisation of this kind of support, students do not always know who to consult: GTA, lead academic, course convenor on academic issues nor do they feel they are available. In a similar line, one could infer that academics and support staff feel a similar confusion.18 Most academics have a maximum of two contact hours where they will talk about teaching related issues19. GTA’s generally do not have advertised office hours. Despite these issues regarding academic support, there are areas of good practice in this area such as Linguistics20.

15

NSS Results - SED 081

16

Appendix 1, 2 and 3

17

There have also been comments relating to academic support in the Anthropology Department’s NSS Student Representative Reports, created by both 2nd and 3rd year anthropology students https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3878129/Feedback%20Department%202.%20Year%20Anthropology%20Students.pdf

18

NSS Results SED 081

19

For example: http://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff31597.php or http://www.soas.ac.uk/staff/staff30926.php of two academics picked at random from different departments.

20

Appendix 2: Open Focus Group (see Linguistics)

10

●

●

●

Graduate Teaching Assistants, GTAs, are trained before teaching begins but are given little support once courses have commenced21. There is also no systematic feedback on teaching until the end of the academic year as course feedback is only done annually..

There is also concern from GTA’s and students that those teaching are not necessarily specialists on the subjects allocated to them 22 .In this, systems are not thoroughly supportive of either GTAs or the students they support through teaching The Students’ Union promotes a more holistic view of education where academic support, teaching and research should not be seen as exclusive to one another as displayed in the SU Academic Priorities. In this, we recommend the School considers Student Led Teaching Awards (HEA and NUS) and Tutorial Surveys mid-way through term to assess teaching positively along with the creation of a basic level of academic support outside of scheduled lecture hours.

In addition to this, we would attention should be given to the appendices in regards to tutorial quality and availability along with issues concerning the timeliness and quality of coursework and examination feedback. 23 Although the school have made moves to improve these, they remain ongoing areas of concern

4.2 Learning resources are appropriate to allow students to achieve the learning outcomes of their programmes The refurbishment of the library and the IT services has recently improved 24 , leading to students being more able to access the services they need to achieve learning outcomes.

Improvement continues in the recent move to Moodle on the Bloomsbury Learning Environment 25 . This is promising as it allows students greater access to online materials, especially when considering the opportunities available to students to share ideas and resources. It is our hope academics will use this opportunity to use Moodle to improve access to course materials, discussions and the wider use of technology in learning (see 4.12), especially considering inconsistent and in some cases poor uptake of online learning resources a the current time.

Despite positive moves forward, access to learning resources has been raised as a cause for concern by students. This is evident when regarding access to ‘essential readings’ There seems to be an issue in communication between course conveners and the library in ordering learning materials in a timely fashion and creating digital online resources and study packs26. [School email library]. This results is some students not having access to adequate learning materials,

21

Appendix 1

22

Appendix 1 and 2.

23

Appendices 1, 2, and 3

24

NSS Results SED 081

25

SED 094 and SED 291.

26

E-mails from the Library to all staff: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3878129/SOAS%20Mail%20%20Course%20Readings%20and%20Reading%20Lists%202011_12.pdf and https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3878129/SOAS%20Mail%20-%20Buying%20materials%20for%20new%20courses%20Urgent%21.pdf

11

which in turn does not allow for the quality of learning in the tutorial structure to be of adequate standard. This is especially when these are core readings are the focus of discussion.

‘The books in the reading list are difficult to find in the library. Many times, there is only one copy of them. We don’t have reading packs and the readings are not online. I was advised by teachers to go to the national library if I wanted to get the books in substitution! Is that the only solution?

Reading packs? Online?’

History of Art, BA To combat the ‘core reading issue’, many academics have opted to provide study packs. While these are useful, study packs come at a cost to the student. In addition to this, there have been cases where study packs are provided late to students, and in some cases adequate numbers have not been printed.27 Furthermore, the size of the buildings cause a number of issues around student learning opportunities. Overcrowded classrooms and a shortage of flexible student study space makes this especially true when considering disabled students. This lack of adequate space extends to the availability of soundproofed music practice rooms, leading to a lack of Practice Space for students being a potential cause for concern: ‘Where is the space? My flute is too quiet when the piano next door is used!’

Music BA ‘Access to computers is very limited but the music practice room situation has improved slightly since my BA’ Music MA ‘More books in the library, there’s not enough for the students’ demands Flexible study space, like Queen Mary (where people can drink coffee and eat snacks)’ Development Studies and Anthropology, BA ‘Room issues: Chinese 301, 4 weeks of sitting on the floor in a class from 12 seats but 26 people before it was sorted. Politics of China – too few seats. ‘ Chinese and Politics, BA ●

While space remains an issue, the Students’ Union welcomes the refurbishment of the Research hub in Gordon Square, and hope future refurbishments of student facilities are up to this standard28. In this, however, we also urge the School to make a concerted

27

Appendix 1- Learning Resources

28

SED 042

12

effort in future projects to ensure that new and developed spaces are equally accessible to all students before improvements are made, especially in the upcoming development of the North Block of Senate House. There is more detail on these issues in 4.8 of this document.

4.3 There is an effective contribution of students to quality assurance ● The Student Representative System at SOAS (Student Reps) is vital to the student contribution to Quality Assurance and Enhancement throughout the School’s structure.

Students’ are represented in department meetings, and Faculty level committees by Student Reps and are called upon to consult, comment and make suggestions on operational and strategic developments. ● The Students Representative Code of Practice governs the way Student Reps are selected, trained and outlines the responsibilities of the School and the Students’ Union in operating the system, aiding and maintaining the system’s effectiveness29. This Code Of Practice is regularly reviewed by Governing Body and the Union’s Trustee Board. ● While the Code of Practice outlines a basic structure for the Student Representative system, there is much variation between Faculties and the Departments within each Faculty. This variation exists both in the understanding and awareness of the Code of Practice as well as how it is enacted, which in turn causes difficulty for the Students’ Union to regulate the system and its effectiveness30. ● Student / Staff Forums are very good practice in some departments (Politics and History), giving a dedicated space for communication between Students, Student Reps and their constituent Departments. However this practice is not universal across the School, leading to differing means of student engagement at the department level, which could account for the varying levels of student satisfaction. Therefore, in this varying structure, Student Reps are perhaps at their most effective at a local level, being able to sort out problems with quality and teaching directly with the lecturer. ● Training of Student Representatives is carried out at the beginning of each term, being offered to those both new and returning to the position. While the uptake of this training has been low in the past, there has been a clear and constant increase since the previous Institutional Review 31 ,indicative of greater student engagement in quality assurance32. It is the Students’ Union’s view that this increase in uptake correlates to a concerted effort by the Students’ Union to raise the profile of Student Reps, especially during welcome week. It is our view that an increase of student staff forums, along with a more consistent engagement with the Code of Practice at the Department level, the increasing engagement of Student Reps will continue.

29

SED 114

30

E-mail from SU to Heads Of Department about Rep Elections: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3878129/SOAS%20Mail%20-%20Fwd_%20__Student%20Rep%20Elections__.pdf 31

E-mail from trainer: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3878129/SOAS%20Mail%20%20Fwd_%20Rep%20training%20attendance.pdf 32

Student Rep List and Attendence

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Avn77Z0whG6tdHJrM2x4THJhVkJUcDVHbUtHdmluUHc

13

●

●

●

SOAS Students’ Union Educational Priorities is an annual document, produced from 2010, presented to Faculty and Academic Boards to highlight the most important areas of quality enhancement for students. The document is written by the Co-President Welfare and Education in consultation with the Student Reps,members of the Students Union Executive Committee and Trustee Board. This annual document has aided in the School identifying key areas for enhancement, and There has been a point of positive engagement between the Students’ Union and the School33 34. However, more work is needed to ensure that this annual document has procedural means of being disseminated through and approved by the student body, and that its status is secured within the School. There procedural means will ensure consistent success in making the student body more proactive in improving their education.

The Students’ Union sabbaticals also meet regularly with key members for the School and have a good working relationship with the Deans and the Directorate. In particular the Sabbaticals have an informal meeting with the Director and Secretary of the School to raise any issues, which have often dealt with assurance and enhancement issues and there is a clear line that students, student reps and SU Trustees can feed into this conversation35.

Two sabbatical officers are full members of the School’s Governing Body and in this have the opportunity to speak on assurance, quality and enhancement issues as part of the School’s oversight process. Nonetheless, while representation at this level has proven a valuable part of building a working relationship between the school and the Student’s Union, there is a clear lack of student input at Executive Board, the decision making level body of the School, while Governing Body is the point where decisions are ratified.

As can be seen through the description of the Student Representative System, there is a substantive amount of student engagement through the School’s Committee Structures; however, an issue arises when considering the engagement of the wider student body in the School’s procedures and decision making processes as is discussed above in the Standards Section of the document. In short, actions on feedback are not made readily available to students, which hinders the encouragement student engagement with the academic structures of which they are part of36. While there has been considerable progress in engaging Student Representatives in Department discussions concerning NSS feedback, work to ensure a wider dissemination of information is one that the Students’ Union would welcome.

4.4 There is effective use of management information to safeguard quality and standards and to promote enhancement of student learning opportunities The internal use of Management Information is not an issue that students are able to comment on fully; however, some of the experiences reported by students are probably due to issues in

33

Academic Board Minutes November 2010: http://www.soas.ac.uk/committees/academicboard/file73541.pdf

34

SED 119

35

For example SED 116

36

Appendix 1: Rep Training Outcomes

14

this area. Students have a low opinion of basic administration within the School, seen consistently through the NSS37, and along with low scoring academic support can be seen to add negatively to the student experience. In this, a further investigation into the dissemination of information regarding students with disabilities, and whose responsibility it is to share Learning Support Agreements38.

4.5 Policies and procedures used to admit students are clear, fair, explicit and consistently applied ● Current students are clearly the product of the current admissions policies and procedures and therefore we have not had many issues raised about this. Applications through UCAS seem to be clear, fair and well handled. ● The School has strict and clear guidelines in their admissions policy, and advertises clear points scores for standard students. The School is very open to non-standard applicants; however the information for these potential students be could clearer and more consistent39.

4.6 There are effective complaints and appeals procedures ● The School reviewed its complaints and appeals proceed in 2010 resulting in a clearer process which the Co-President Welfare & Education advises students on and takes them through the process. We do not get formal feedback from students at the end of the process, however the Co-President is in a position to comment on it.

In it being the role of the Co-President Welfare & Education to advise students on the complaints and appeal procedures, engagement with the process from both the School’s and the Students’ side is observable. In this, although the written procedure has become clearer, there seems to be a lack of clarity regarding the process of complaints and appeals in and among departments. This lack of clarity is also found in Mitigating Circumstances Policy, with one of the main causes for concern being that there is no consistent Policy between Faculties, potentially causing much confusion and stress to those already enduring stressful situations. ‘‘In my personal experience, it was ridiculous that the [one] Faculty was able to appeal my failed attempt of coursework without a problem, but I still had difficulties with [another Faculty] (which in turn, has led me to have to start from Year 1 since that 1 module from a Faculty that wasn't even mine, had not been passed since they would not accept my late work.)’

Anthropology BA

37

SED 081 Appendix 2: Focus Groups (Disabilities) 39 Appendix 2: Mature Students Focus Group 38

15

The current appeal procedure is likely to cause some misunderstanding and confusion regarding the appropriate actions that need to be taken by the various parties involved.

The rules only cover the general guidelines regarding the procedure, but do not provide enough details on the responsibilities of the different parties which are involved in the procedure.

Moreover, these rules do not provide for specific timeframes within which the appeal must be submitted or within which a decision must be made at each stage of the appeal procedure.

Therefore, I believe that the current regulations on complaints and appeals are incomplete, and do not provide fair and impartial procedures for SOAS students’ Law MPhil40

There is concern about the number of complaints and appeals being upheld within the process.

Whilst we are pleased for the individuals, and consider this proof of the efficacy of the procedure, the process of appealing is time consuming and stressful for students. Of the 115 appeals received in 2011/12, 46 were rejected, 62 were upheld; and 5 are ongoing41.

A concern also arises in that the quality of support received by students will vary from year to year. This come back to the fact that support is given by the Co-President Welfare and Education- an elected figure with no official training in Complaints and Appeal Procedures.

Finally as the Co-President Welfare And Education often sits on appeal panel hearings, there is a conflict of interest potentially raised when giving advice.

4.7 There is an approach to career education, information, advice and guidance (CEIAG) that is adequately quality assured From working with the Careers Department, the Students’ Unions see there to be no pressing issues regarding the quality of and information regarding CEIAG. This was not an area raised as a concern by students.

4.8 The quality of learning opportunities is managed to enable the entitlements of disabled students to be met

40

Response from e-mail to people who had been through the complaints and e-mail procedure: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3878129/SOAS%20Mail%20-%20Fwd_%20Complaints%20and%20Appeals%20Process%20Comments.pdf 41

Academic Board Minutes- Complaints and Appeals https://docs.google.com/open?id=1jy9BwAL6Jjiue2CR7WvY_F1jbF0jAt-C8sb2C4VkXPfHYoyJQw3nxaLSbIJ

16

●

●

●

Within Focus Groups and throughout the Student Rep Training Process, one of the questions asked to students was regarding their awareness of and opinions regarding the School’s provisions for disabled students42. This was identified as a key area due to increased interest in the student body regarding disabilities 43 as well as ongoing discussions regarding the School’s Mitigating Circumstance policy discussed above. To expand on the concerns surrounding Mitigating Circumstances 4445 , in addition to the Policy not being clear and consistent, Disabilities are counted within its structure. This has the potential to lead to students handing in the same coursework, the same number of days late, with the same LSA whilst receive different penalties depending on the Faculty that student resides in. We would like to note, however, that this policy is currently being reviewed by the school.

Currently, the school have a very efficient, ‘effectively advertised’46; and well-meaning team both in terms of Student Services, Disability Advisors and the Academic Development Directorate through their Study Skills workshops; however, gaining access to these services has been raised as an issue among students4748. There is cause for concern in the realisation that despite the good raport of contact between student services and the students, there is a distinct lack of awareness of what is available to disabled students among the wider student body, especially among those that do not consider themselves disabled49. This is worrying, not only considering the number of ‘unknown’ disabled students in universities, but also the possibility for student quality assurance and enhancement in the academic structure.

Feedback given by students in disability groups has highlighted another issue regarding the opportunities provided to enable the entitlements of disabled students to be met, in terms of both mobility access and communication of reasonable adjustments: The SOAS buildings and campus is - basically - not suitable for students with disabilities/mobility problems. The doc school is non-accessible, the language centre is non-accessible, the main library is non-accessible.

Law, PhD More teacher contact time would make everything a lot easier... clearer info about dyslexia support

42

Appendix 2: Disability Focus Group

43

Mental Health & Disabilities Open Meeting: https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3878129/SOAS%20Mail%20%20Fwd_%20Minutes_Action%20Points%20from%20Last%20Meeting_%20Reminder%20for%20Tonight%21.pdf 44

Late Coursework Web page- http://www.soas.ac.uk/exams/absence-from-exams-and-coursework-lateor-non-submission/ 45 Undergraduate Handbook- Mitigating Circumstances pg. 161 http://www.soas.ac.uk/infocomp/foi/pubscheme/students/file22914.pdf 46

Appendix 1

47

Ibid.

48

Appendix 2: Disability Focus Group

49

Appendix 1: Rep Training Feedback

17

Anthropology, BA50 From these comments, issues discussed previously in this submission can be seen, highlighting both access issues and gaps in communication. While being wider issues in the school, they do have a disproportionate effect on students with disabilities.

4.9 The quality of learning opportunities for international students is appropriate The SOAS Student Body is almost 50% international students, and while this figure differs depending on degree classification (UG, PGT, PGR), the school has within its structures provisions to cater for these students [see SED]. The only cause for concern in this areas again lies in communication to students. Regulations and norms that are unique to British Higher Education Institutions are not made clear, which often leaves international students at a disadvantage. This is especially relevant when considering plagiarism regulations5152, and the lack of systematic guidance given with respect to coursework for PGT students.53 4.10 Appropriate support and guidance is provided to enable postgraduate research students to complete their programmes and to enable staff involved in research programmes to fulfill their responsibilities ● Log Books for PGR students continues to be a site of good practice54 ● Representation of research students has been an ongoing issue throughout recent years.

In response to this, the Research Students’ Association 55 was set up in the last academic year to improve their representation. Although this is a good development and evidence of good practice, there are issues with it working in its application (no-one came forward to run as Postgraduate Research Officer in the SU, the cornerstone of the new structure). There needs to be more work from both the School and the Students’ Union to improve this so as PRG Students are adequately represented in Departments, Faculties, and in the Students’ Union itself. ● There have also been issues brought up regarding the support given to Research Students in GTA positions. Comments can be found in the appendices. 56 4.11 The quality of learning opportunities delivered as part of collaborative arrangements is managed effectively to enable students to achieve their awards ● The students whose courses are delivered through distance learning are not part of the Students’ Union, and therefore adequate information cannot be acquired regarding their experience.

50

Appendix 3: Open Comments

51

Faculty Web Page on Academic Honesty http://www.soas.ac.uk/languagecultures/studentinfo/ Appendix 2- Open Focus Group

52 53

See SED 119

54

Research Student Handbook: http://www.soas.ac.uk/infocomp/foi/pubscheme/external/file22503.pdf

55

SED 203 Appendix 2

56

18

4.12 The quality of learning opportunities delivered through flexible and distributed arrangement, including e-learning is managed effectively ● In line with what has been discussed in points 4.8-4.9, there are concerns from students regarding the availability of flexible learning through e-learning resources. This comes despite the School’s welcomed switch over to Moodle, a platform that allows for this distributed learning to be realised more easily 57 . Comments from students have highlighted this.

We don’t have reading packs and the readings are not online. I was advised by teachers to go to the national library if I wanted to get the books in substitution! Is that the only solution? Reading packs? Online?

History of Art, BA ‘Sometime Moodle system can be confusing. Don’t know what’s actually going on with the whole year. The structure is confusing.’

Arts and Humanities, BA ●

With this in mind, more consistent and better communicated usage of online resources would aid in students’ experience of their education. This is especially true considering the international students that are part of the institution as well as those with disabilities need more system supported flexible learning arrangements. In addition to this, the lack of part-time Undergraduate Degrees entails that mature students must study fulltime. Better use of online resources in terms of lecture capture, notes and reading materials would better equal learning opportunities for these students.

4.13 The quality of learning opportunities delivered through work-based and placement learning is effective This is not an area that students expressed as a key concern as we do not tend to have many students that learn through work-based and placement learning. However, many SOAS students do study abroad for a year of their degree, or go abroad for fieldwork in the second year of research. In this, it is important to highlight some concerns students have raised regarding this time abroad for many SOAS students: ·A number of students complained about the ETHICS process which

required sign-off at (LSS) faculty level before students were able to go on fieldwork. The most worrying thing was that students found themselves corresponding with somebody at Faculty level without any face to face meetings with this person. They were informed that their case would be referred to a "Committee" with no idea who was on this committee, whether they had understood their particular case properly (given the lack of face to face communication) and whether the process was adding any value at all. for instance, it is frustrating and careless that the school doesn't provide any guidelines, resources or assistance to students on how to manage their

57

Appendix 1

19

security whilst on the field, yet blocks ethics applications for reasons of 'security'. Given SOAS's extensive history of sending students to an array of locations for fieldwork, it would seem reasonable that the school would have collated feedback from returning PhD, Law and Social Sciences 58 Organisation for the year abroad is very inconsistent.

Swahilli, BA Although these points might be in need of further investigation, we have not been able to attain more evidence regarding this issue.

4.14 A student charter, or equivalent document, setting out the mutual expectations of the institution and its students, is available ● The Students’ Union and the school have embarked on a process to develop a Student Charter for the end of the 2012/13 session. Both parties agree that this should not be rushed, and will only be meaningful if it has buy in from all levels of the School, and we will start in January to have collaborative open meetings with staff and students’ to build the Charter. 59 We have agreed on a procedure with the School to move forward on this.60 ● The aim from the Students’ Union perspective is to have an open and frank discussion about rights and responsibilities within the institution and to help bridge communication between students and academics to help change some of the less helpful aspects of SOAS culture.

58

Appendix 3: Open Comments

59

SED 211i

60

Student Sharter Briefing Note https://dl.dropbox.com/u/3878129/Student%20Charter%20Briefing%20Note%202911-12.docx

20

5. HOW EFFECTIVELY THE INSTITUTION MANAGES THE QUALITY OF THE PUBLIC INFORMATION THAT IT PROVIDES, INCLUDING THAT FOR STUDENTS AND APPLICANTS The students did not have many issues with the general quality of public information. There were however comments on the accuracy and consistency of the information available when applying and as students. ●

●

●

●

It was raised that there were areas of the website when course structures were not complete. For example the Law PhD Degree page is empty for Structure, compared with the Research Degree in History61 The website is difficult to navigate for specific details on degree regulations. The regulations are all published online as part of the Undergraduate / Postgraduate Taught / Postgraduate Research Handbooks in pdf form. For example for an undergraduate to work out how their final degree results are worked out they are linked to the whole Undergraduate Handbook (pdf - 188pp) which they then have to search in separately.

Simple and vital information like this should be put in a more accessible form.62 The lack of easily accessible information around regulations means students rely more on asking their academics, who are often equally misinformed about issues. Whilst a lot of good work has been done to remove contradictory information from the website, unless information for current students is easy to find for student and staff problems will continue.

There is also an issue with information varying in the School from Faculty to Faculty.

This is particularly problematic for students who are taking courses across faculties. For example there are two different pages with the title “Online Submission Guide” - one for Law & Social Sciences and one for Arts and Humanities. They both link to two different guides to using the same software. There is no equivalent page for Languages and Cultures.63

6. THE INSTITUTIONS ENHANCEMENT OF STUDENTS’ LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES

61

http://www.soas.ac.uk/law/programmes/phd/ compared to http://www.soas.ac.uk/history/programmes/phd/

62

Search result on “Degree regulations” leads to: http://www.soas.ac.uk/registry/degreeregulations/ - click through on SOAS Undergraduate Regulations 2011-2012 - to a 188pp PDF of all UG regulations: http://www.soas.ac.uk/infocomp/foi/pubscheme/students/file22914.pdf 63

http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawsocialsciences/currentstudents/ocs/guide/ and http://www.soas.ac.uk/artshumanities/information-for-students/ocs/guide/

21

Issues of enhancement have been discussed throughout this document, as student engagement in the improvement of education is integral to understanding its quality. When focussing on enhancement specifically, however, it can be seen that there few direct means in the procedures for proactive enhancement that engages students. Through our representative structure, most of the dialogue is from direct feedback on experiences, and while this is positive, the enhancement of learning opportunities often comes through innovation. In order for this innovation to become intrinsic to SOAS’s quality structures, there must be a more meaningful effort to ask students what would benefit their academic experience, rather than focussing primarily on feedback forms and course reviews.

The development and spread of Student/Staff forums are a positive move towards having more dedicated platform for Quality Enhancement. This is a result of these meetings being dedicated to student issues, creating a space for student led initiatives in departments. We also think that the sharing of good practice and innovation across Departments and Faculties needs to be improved. The institution needs to also look outside of itself for innovation in other institutions which may enhance the learning within SOAS - and our own Masters and Research students who may have experience of such innovation elsewhere. There are lots of areas where innovation in teaching, support and assessment are enhancing the learning experience of SOAS students, but unfortunately there is not a strong enough system in place for these to spread across the School.

22

THEMATIC ELEMENT OF REVIEW: STUDENT INVOLVEMENT IN QUALITY ASSURANCE AND ENHANCEMENT We would like to answer the questions around this thematic part of the review discursively, from our experiences working with the School on this issue. In presenting a student viewpoint on involvement on quality assurance and enhancement we want to stress that such involvement is key to the development of SOAS as a dynamic institution.

The Students’ Union and wider student body are embedded quite firmly in the School’s Quality Assurance procedures, as identified previously in this document. Student reps get to feedback regularly in department meetings, Staff / Student forums identify issues and course feedback forms are now an integral part of quality review. The Periodic Programme Review in particular is a key example where reps, ordinary students and staff are engaged in a local quality audit.

While there are issues in closing the feedback loop, and timing of some of the feedback process, we do feel that SOAS is committed to gathering and acting on the information to improve the education within SOAS. However, with the exception of enhancement that comes from the gradual improvement that comes out of action from feedback, we do feel there is not so much of a consistent voice within enhancement.

It is for this reason the Students’ Union started to write the Students’ Union Educational Priorities in 2010. These have been a useful way for the student body to engage with enhancement issues, and have been successful in a number of key areas. However, in this document being one that comes straight from the SU, it can be difficult to research well in advance of the first Academic Board. In this its original unsolicited nature means that whilst it has been welcomed by the School, it may not be the best way to progress certain issues. It is a document which usually contains at least ten points to satisfy many different constituencies and therefore can be an unwieldy document to affect systemic change. Whilst it has improved the student voice in enhancement, it is still in its own way quite a reactive document. As a result, it is our intention to improve the systems that surround this document to improve its effectiveness.

We were pleased and interested to see how the student body engaged with the School’s Strategic Review 2016-2020 - in particular around growing the institution and potential new areas of study. These processes of helping the School keep up with competitors, and staying at the forefront of its fields of study that students should be more regularly involved with. We believe the graduating students should be surveyed either at the end of their courses, or a few years afterwards. It is our view that this would aid in the development of their courses and the institution. Both academics and alumni have good, but differing perspectives of the state of their academic disciplines, and it would be useful to have the current student voice and those who have left to help develop what SOAS should be teaching now and in the future.

SOAS has come a long way from 1916, taken on whole new continents to study and almost

23

completely reversed the pedagogical reason for our existence. Most of this change has come from within, bringing society with us later. SOAS needs to have the student voice embedded in this development to remain strong, vibrant and the great institution most of the students - aside some gripes - said it currently is.

24