In order to address this question, the submission will focus primarily on students’ reported understanding of academic expectations, and their experiences of assessment and feedback as well as the Learning and Teaching Partnership Agreement, which sets out the responsibilities involved in learning and teaching for students, Schools and the University. Students’ understanding of the University’s rules, regulations and procedures is also crucial to their understanding of what is expected of them, and in considering this relevant trends and examples from the LUU Student Advice Centre’s academic casework are also discussed.
3.1 The Partnership Agreement
The University’s Partnership Agreement states that the University will:
“provide clear guidance on the requirements for individual awards,”
“operate fair and transparent disciplinary rules”
“provide transparent and clear mechanisms for considering complaints and appeals”
and that Schools will:
“maintain a document detailing the assessment policies and practices within the school”
and
“provide systematic and timely feedback on assessed work.”
In addition, the University has Codes of Practice on Assessment, Attendance and Personal Tutorials for student on taught programmes (appendices L, M and N).
“provide clear guidance on the requirements for individual awards,”
“operate fair and transparent disciplinary rules”
“provide transparent and clear mechanisms for considering complaints and appeals”
and that Schools will:
“maintain a document detailing the assessment policies and practices within the school”
and
“provide systematic and timely feedback on assessed work.”
In addition, the University has Codes of Practice on Assessment, Attendance and Personal Tutorials for student on taught programmes (appendices L, M and N).
The Partnership Agreement was developed jointly by students, represented by LUU, and the University, represented by the Learning and Teaching Board, and sets in practical terms the dual responsibilities involved in learning and teaching for both students and Schools. The Partnership Agreement is referred to throughout this document as a baseline of expectations against which to compare students views expressed in the surveys considered.
LUU’s current Education Officer makes the following observations about the Partnership Agreement:
“The Partnership Agreement is a useful tool for students to see where the responsibilities of the University and their parent school lies. It also states what the University can in turn expect from their students. This list is not exhaustive and is a fair reflection of the fact that higher education is a participatory activity which requires both the student and lecturer to engage with the subject being taught. As an education officer I am pleased that this document has been drafted and that it resembles an agreement rather than a one sided contract listing several demands on students, which has been the case at other institutions.
However the partnership agreement has not previously been marketed effectively and very few students are aware of its current existence. This therefore takes away from how effective it can be as a measure of comparative treatment. Whilst I appreciate that there are in some instances disciplinary needs which means it is appropriate for schools to provide different provisions I feel the partnership agreement could be used positively by students to demonstrate where a school is failing to provide the expected minimum standard of care.
More worryingly from my perspective students’ lack of awareness also means they are unaware of the entitlements the agreement brings. Some schools are intent on emphasizing the demands students have to fulfill whilst shying away from the fact that this is an agreement with demands equally placed on the institution. As Education Officer I would like to see the University and individual schools referring back to the Partnership Agreement more regularly. As references to the strategy map are made regularly to staff so they adopt the concept of where the University is going, so too do students have to be reminded of their equal partnership in the fate of their student experience.
I think schools could benefit from using direct aspects of the agreement to highlight where they have fulfilled expectations. I believe this would assist students as they would be able to grasp real examples of where their entitlements are currently being met.
Some people within the University have claimed that the expectations amongst the student population can be too unrealistic. The Partnership Agreement may be a useful tool in managing student expectations from the beginning of their academic careers. If Leeds University as a whole was able to demonstrate more effectively to current students that the staple demands within the agreement are being reached hopefully this would mean more students would understand that progression and success is clearly linked to active engagement with academic tools like feedback, skills sessions & personal tutoring.
Until schools are able to demonstrate to the student population at large that they are fulfilling the basic level of expectations students will continue to complain, for example, that the University is falling behind on assessment & feedback, whether this is the case or not. By allowing the partnership agreement to become more tangible by allowing students to judge its expectations against their experience can only lead to increased student involvement in improving and enhancing the overall student experience.
Over the coming year I will be working with the University to ensure that this agreement is well publicized within departments and that it continues to be relevant and reflective of the needs of our students.”
However the partnership agreement has not previously been marketed effectively and very few students are aware of its current existence. This therefore takes away from how effective it can be as a measure of comparative treatment. Whilst I appreciate that there are in some instances disciplinary needs which means it is appropriate for schools to provide different provisions I feel the partnership agreement could be used positively by students to demonstrate where a school is failing to provide the expected minimum standard of care.
More worryingly from my perspective students’ lack of awareness also means they are unaware of the entitlements the agreement brings. Some schools are intent on emphasizing the demands students have to fulfill whilst shying away from the fact that this is an agreement with demands equally placed on the institution. As Education Officer I would like to see the University and individual schools referring back to the Partnership Agreement more regularly. As references to the strategy map are made regularly to staff so they adopt the concept of where the University is going, so too do students have to be reminded of their equal partnership in the fate of their student experience.
I think schools could benefit from using direct aspects of the agreement to highlight where they have fulfilled expectations. I believe this would assist students as they would be able to grasp real examples of where their entitlements are currently being met.
Some people within the University have claimed that the expectations amongst the student population can be too unrealistic. The Partnership Agreement may be a useful tool in managing student expectations from the beginning of their academic careers. If Leeds University as a whole was able to demonstrate more effectively to current students that the staple demands within the agreement are being reached hopefully this would mean more students would understand that progression and success is clearly linked to active engagement with academic tools like feedback, skills sessions & personal tutoring.
Until schools are able to demonstrate to the student population at large that they are fulfilling the basic level of expectations students will continue to complain, for example, that the University is falling behind on assessment & feedback, whether this is the case or not. By allowing the partnership agreement to become more tangible by allowing students to judge its expectations against their experience can only lead to increased student involvement in improving and enhancing the overall student experience.
Over the coming year I will be working with the University to ensure that this agreement is well publicized within departments and that it continues to be relevant and reflective of the needs of our students.”
3.2 Taught Students
73% of undergraduate respondents to the University’s 2006 Programme Survey ‘mostly’ or ‘definitely’ agreed that they were clear what was expected of them from their programmes. However, assessment and feedback categories received the lowest score overall in the NSS, and the second lowest in the Programme Survey, indicating that this is one of the areas with which undergraduates are least satisfied.
The University mean score in the ‘assessment and feedback’ category of the 2006 and 2007 NSS was 3.4. The Faculty of Arts was the highest-scoring Faculty in this category in both years; with the School of English and the School of Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies both scoring 4 for the question ‘Assessment arrangements and marking have been fair.’ In 2006 LUBS was the lowest-scoring Faculty, with the School of Economics receiving the lowest score in the survey; 2.1 for the question ‘I have received detailed comments on my work’ (see appendix O). The Faculty of Engineering received the lowest faculty mean score of 3.1 in 2007.
In response to the 2006 NSS, the following examples of good practice were implemented by Schools (see appendix J):
- Clear schedule for the marking of assessments and the return of feedback (School of Education )
- Exam feedback provided for 2006/7 session (School of English)
- Exam markers are to submit reports to module co-ordinators who will compile a report to be posted on NBB, which will offer general feedback on trends in exam answers, weaknesses and strengths (School of English)
- Faculty-wide ‘Induction to University Assessment’ event in Reading Week, consisting of interactive lectures and small group workshops, introducing students to some of the key differences between school and university (Faculty of Arts).
While these initiatives are certainly to be welcomed, most of these examples serve to bring School practice in line with the University’s Code of practice on Assessment. However it is important to continue seeking new methods of managing and meeting student expectations with regards to feedback and assessment. LUU’s Education Officer makes the following comments about the NSS assessment and feedback scores:
“There are some instances where feedback is hard to retrieve and not accessible or reflective of the needs of students on a said course, but there are also some cases where a low performance in the assessment and feedback category in the NSS is related more to the lack of effective communication about what problems have been rectified since the last survey.
I feel it is important when looking at the assessment and feedback scores not to see them in isolation but to consider how to make students feel more passionate about their subject and more responsible for the outcome of their learning, and I believe the partnership agreement if widely spoken about could try to do just that.
A lot of hard work is done by the staff at the University, and students are generally pleased with their experience. But Leeds University can always strive to improve.”
I feel it is important when looking at the assessment and feedback scores not to see them in isolation but to consider how to make students feel more passionate about their subject and more responsible for the outcome of their learning, and I believe the partnership agreement if widely spoken about could try to do just that.
A lot of hard work is done by the staff at the University, and students are generally pleased with their experience. But Leeds University can always strive to improve.”
Programme Survey responses indicate that students on joint honours programmes are slightly less satisfied with assessment and feedback than students on single honours programmes. The Faculty of Arts was the highest scoring faculty in this section of the survey, and the Faculty of Engineering was the lowest scoring. Teaching, Learning and Assessment was also one of the lower-scoring categories among taught postgraduates in the Programme Survey; the University mean score for questions relating directly to assessment and feedback is 3.6. Highest and lowest scoring faculties were the same as for undergraduates (see appendix O).
The Programme survey also gathered respondents’ views about their understanding of what is expected of them from dissertations, projects and practical work. Faculty mean scores were higher in this area than for the survey question about programme expectations (see appendix O).
Overall, responses to the NSS and the Programme Survey were more positive in relation to assessment arrangements than in relation to the timeliness and helpfulness of feedback.
3.3 Part-time Students
The majority of Part-time Student Programme Evaluation respondents seemed satisfied with marking criteria, assessment arrangements and feedback. There were no significant differences between assessment and feedback results and responses to other sections of this survey. However, the number of responses to this section of the survey is small (only 117) and this finding cannot be generalized to all part-time students in the University.
Table V: Responses from Part-time students’ Programme Evaluation, assessment and feedback section.
Respondents’ comments suggest areas in which good practice exists, as well as areas for improvement. In comparison with other sections of the survey, the most frequently recurring themes related to assessment and feedback; namely the value of prompt feedback:
“Constructive comments on assessment of assignments which help my awareness of the quality of my written work”
“Prompt feedback has been particularly useful. Also handing in drafts has been beneficial ”
“Tutors email responses re drafts-this is very helpful”
and students’ frustration when feedback is not provided:“Prompt feedback has been particularly useful. Also handing in drafts has been beneficial ”
“Tutors email responses re drafts-this is very helpful”
3.4 Research Students
With the exception of awareness of the Code of Practice, the percentage of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with the statements above are lower than in some of the other Research Student categories considered by this submission. Awareness of the Code of Practice has increased significantly since 2004, which may be attributable to the fact that this is now provided for students in a summarized form.
Table VI: Responses from Research Student Survey; questions relating to academic expectations.
Research students’ previous experience of academic study and the close relationship that most have with their supervisors may contribute to the fact they appear to be on the whole more satisfied that they understand the expectations of their degree than undergraduates.
3.5 Student Advice Centre Academic Procedural Casework
3.5.1 Introduction
3.5.1 Introduction
LUU’s Student Advice Centre provides independent, confidential advice on University academic procedures and regulations. This may include one-off advice through the Centre’s drop-in service, casework support in writing an appeal or representation at informal meetings and/or formal hearings. In 2004/5 and 2005/6 the majority of procedural casework was made up of appeals against final undergraduate degree classifications, followed by helping students defend allegations of cheating an plagiarism. In 2005/6 131 new procedural cases were opened.
Generally there are 3 principle reasons why students will seek procedural advice from the Student Advice Centre:
• To respond to an adverse decision or procedure which has been instigated against them
• To instigate an academic appeal or complaint, in order to challenge a decision
• For clarification of general course progression rules
3.5.2 Recurring themes in Advice Centre casework
The Student Advice Centre sees a small proportion of the total student population. However certain recurring types of cases are evident and provide clear examples of where students’ lack of understanding of academic regulations and expectations can have significant and detrimental consequences. In addition, Advice Centre casework frequently highlights the fact that University regulations and procedures remain inaccessible to many students. Some examples are discussed below. To protect client confidentiality individual cases cannot be described in detail.
• International students and plagiarism
The Student Advice Centre sees a disproportionate number of international students accused of plagiarizing in assessed work:
• In 2004/5 24 out of 48 plagiarism cases were international students
• In 2005/6 17 out of 33 plagiarism cases were international students
• To date in 2006/7, 13 out 0f 16 plagiarism cases were international students
A ‘case’ suggests a more severe instance of plagiarism that has been referred to the University. Minor first offences are dealt with at School level and would not normally require ongoing casework from the Student Advice Centre, and therefore would not be recorded as a ‘case’.
The Advice Centre’s experience with plagiarism cases has raised a number of concerns about international students’ understanding of UK academic conventions and University regulations, and the way in which this is managed by the University:
• There appears to be no standardized induction to UK academic conventions, such as referencing, across Schools. Many international students seen in the Advice Centre report not having been aware of plagiarism from either induction at Leeds or previous study abroad, and remain so until they unintentionally plagiarise in an assignment. Furthermore, attending the type of one-off lecture, or receiving information on plagiarism in a course handbook as seems to be the case in many Schools, does not appear sufficient to educate a student who has never before heard the term ‘plagiarism’ as to what is expected of them.
• Plagiarism appears often to not be detected until a student submits their final essay or dissertation project, particularly in the case of taught postgraduates The Advice Centre has dealt with cases where an assignment has been marked and passed by one tutor, and later been found to contain significant amounts of plagiarized material by another. Students often report that they have been referencing in exactly the same way in work where plagiarism is detected to work which has been marked without any plagiarism having been found.
• English language ability may impede some international students’ understanding of and ability to respond to plagiarism allegations. Advice Centre staff frequently report that students’ language skills are such that it takes the majority of a 45 minute appointment to help them understand the basic concept of plagiarism This suggests that traditional ways of communicating about plagiarism are unlikely to be useful to these students.
• Students seeking guidance from the Advice Centre have often had plagiarism detected in their work via Turnitin. The University’s plagiarism website states of Turnitin “…this system does not identify plagiarism, as it does not take into account any of the referencing conventions that may be used. But it does provide a tool that facilitates the identification of potential plagiarism cases and supports the related decision making process,” and suggests a teaching strategy which includes the discussion of students’ originality reports from Turnitin in small tutorial groups. However, the Advice Centre frequently sees students who have been provided with a Turnitin report, having had no further discussion or guidance on whether the passages highlighted actually constitute plagiarism or not.
At present the Student Advice Centre does not know the total numbers of international students subject to plagiarism allegations, as the University does not record this information. However, such instances provide the Advice Centre’s most frequently seen example of where students’ lack of understanding of academic expectations can have significant detrimental effects on their academic career, and general well-being.
The effects of a plagiarism allegation, where it is judged that plagiarism has occurred, depend on its severity and the point in the programme at which plagiarism is detected. University procedure allows for minor first offences to be dealt with at departmental level; where students are often requested to resubmit work. Serious and second offences proceed to be heard by a University Committee. This often incurs significant delay to the students’ progress or graduation (which for international students often have financial and visa implications) often because the Committee on Applications, which hears plagiarism cases, consists of numerous senior academics and as such does not meet frequently. Depending on the penalty imposed, the student’s degree may be compromised. Knock on effects include mental health problems, frequently picked up by Advice Centre staff, which are compounded by the family and financial pressures and relative isolation often experienced by international students. Three Chinese students seen by the Advice Centre in the 2006/07 academic year reported feeling ‘suicidal’ having been found guilty of serious plagiarism.
• Lack of clarity in University procedures and regulations
This concern was noted in the 2004 SWS and has been raised in relation to individual procedures numerous times since. The 2004 submission recommended:
• The use of ‘plain English’ to make regulations and procedures more accessible; including the removal of Latin terms and phrases
• Defining terms such as ‘mitigation’ and ‘plea’
The auditors’ report from 2004 also advised the University to review the clarity of information available to students, and reported evidence from students’ interviewed as part of the audit process that published information was not always sufficiently clear.
The clarity and accessibility of University regulations and procedures remains a concern to the Advice Centre. The Taught Student Guide is now available online and summarises University procedures in plain English. The QAA’s Code of Practice on Academic Appeals and Student Complaints on Academic Matters states that “institutions make publicly available easily comprehensible information on their complaints and appeals procedures,” and further suggests that:
“It is generally recognised that the use of straightforward language, and the avoidance of ‘legalese’ and jargon when developing their procedures, helps institutions to be confident that all those referring to, or making use of, complaints and appeals procedures will be able to understand how they work. It can also be helpful for those writing the procedures to approach drafting or redrafting them from the perspective of a person making a complaint or an appeal. In many cases, the use of graphical illustrations or flowcharts of institutions’ complaints and appeals procedures has been found to assist those who need to refer to them.”
However the language of the University’s procedures themselves has not been altered, and some contain legalistic and Latin terminology. The Student Advice Centre has recently worked with the Office of Academic Appeals and Regulation to write a ‘plain English’ guide to the taught appeals procedure. Students would benefit from other procedures and regulations being similarly rewritten. Students who do not seek advice from LUU or elsewhere, who are not able to sufficiently understand these are likely to be disadvantaged if they are required to defend themselves against an allegation, or explain mitigating circumstances to the University.
Case Study
Student Y was an international student who did not speak English as a first language. He was accused of cheating in an examination, which he admitted to. In accordance with the institution’s cheating procedure he was sent a copy of the examiner’s report, copies of the evidence relating to the allegation, and of the University procedure on cheating, and asked to write a response. Y read the procedure and wrote a brief response to the allegation, in which he admitted to having cheated, apologized and expressed his regret over the incident.
Y was invited to appear in front of the Committee on Applications, who decided to exclude him. He appealed to the Pro-Vice Chancellor who upheld the Committee’s decision. He did not seek advice from the Student Advice Centre until he had received the PVC’s response. After speaking to an adviser he admitted that he had not understood from reading the procedure that his initial response to the allegation was an opportunity to explain any mitigating circumstances which may have impacted on his situation. He also did not understand that he may be expected to wait several hours for his Committee hearing; and consequently, having had to do so, attended the hearing feeling tired, not having eaten, and felt unable to understand or answer the Committee’s questions properly. He told the adviser that he was experiencing family problems at the time of the cheating incident, but he had not realized this was something he should have explained. Having not made this information available to the University, he decided not to pursue the case externally, as the University had acted in accordance with their procedure in dealing with his case. Had he been able to understand what was expected of him at different points in the procedure, Y may have chosen to explain his circumstances more fully, which may have resulted in a less severe penalty.
Student Y was an international student who did not speak English as a first language. He was accused of cheating in an examination, which he admitted to. In accordance with the institution’s cheating procedure he was sent a copy of the examiner’s report, copies of the evidence relating to the allegation, and of the University procedure on cheating, and asked to write a response. Y read the procedure and wrote a brief response to the allegation, in which he admitted to having cheated, apologized and expressed his regret over the incident.
Y was invited to appear in front of the Committee on Applications, who decided to exclude him. He appealed to the Pro-Vice Chancellor who upheld the Committee’s decision. He did not seek advice from the Student Advice Centre until he had received the PVC’s response. After speaking to an adviser he admitted that he had not understood from reading the procedure that his initial response to the allegation was an opportunity to explain any mitigating circumstances which may have impacted on his situation. He also did not understand that he may be expected to wait several hours for his Committee hearing; and consequently, having had to do so, attended the hearing feeling tired, not having eaten, and felt unable to understand or answer the Committee’s questions properly. He told the adviser that he was experiencing family problems at the time of the cheating incident, but he had not realized this was something he should have explained. Having not made this information available to the University, he decided not to pursue the case externally, as the University had acted in accordance with their procedure in dealing with his case. Had he been able to understand what was expected of him at different points in the procedure, Y may have chosen to explain his circumstances more fully, which may have resulted in a less severe penalty.
3.6 Conclusion
The Learning and Teaching Partnership Agreement document is short, simple and accessible; however its effectiveness is also dependent on how it is used by staff and students. While students are continually assessed in terms of their academic performance and their behaviour, a lack of awareness of what they can expect from Schools and the University under the terms of the agreement mean that in practice it may be more one-sided that it is on paper. As one Union Academic Representative explains:
“I completely agree that the Partnership agreement is not well known and maybe it is being advertised to 1st and 2nd years but certainly most 3rd yr and Masters students have never heard of it. I went round my department earlier to look for it and could not see it displayed anywhere - this needs to be addressed by each individual school.”
To ensure its effectiveness, students must be aware of the partnership agreement as well as the systems in place to ensure Schools and the University are meeting their responsibilities, and to raise concerns about these if they are not.
The various student survey results reported in this section show some of the lowest levels of undergraduate student satisfaction concern assessment and feedback. This has been consistent for the 3 years in which the National Student Survey has operated, and demonstrates that students clearly view assessment and feedback as an integral aspect of their academic development, and that expectations need to be managed and communicated clearly with regards to this. Comments made by part-time students in as part of their Programme Evaluation Survey support this conclusion.
It is not realistic to expect every to student to read and understand the full range of University regulations and procedures upon enrollment, but Student Advice Centre casework provides examples of areas where more effort is needed in ensuring students are clear of what is expected of them, both in order to avoid falling foul of regulations, and in order to respond appropriately should they find themselves in trouble. In addition, procedures setting out the rights of students to challenge a University decision need to be equally accessible to all in order to ensure an equitable student experience.
