4.1 Taught Students
Tables VII and VIII show the University means scores of each section of the NSS and Programme surveys. Assessment and Feedback have been discussed in the previous section; the remaining categories will be examined individually in this section.

Table VII: University mean scores from 2006 and 2007 NSS, by NSS category.



Table VIII: University mean scores from 2006 Programme survey, by Programme Survey

Overall this category achieved one of the highest scores in the NSS. The Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Medicine and Health received the highest mean scores for teaching in 2006, and the Faculties of Arts and Biological Sciences in 2007 (see appendix P). Within these faculties, the Schools of English; Philosophy, Theology and Religious Studies; and History (all Arts) achieved the highest individual item scores for the question ‘The course is intellectually stimulating.’ Leeds University Business School (LUBS) ranked lowest in the teaching category in 2006, and PVAC in 2007. The lowest individual item scores were received in 2007 by the School of Design.

Teaching, learning and assessment ranked less well in the Programme Survey, though mean scores relating directly to teaching and learning suggest that this is probably because of the inclusion of lower-scoring assessment and feedback questions in this category. Faculty mean scores from the Programme Survey reflect those of the NSS, with the Faculty of Arts, Biological Sciences and the Faculty of Medicine and Health performing especially well. Joint Honours students were marginally less satisfied than Single Honours students, particularly in the Faculty of Engineering and MAPS, and with regards to the communication abilities of teaching staff. Taught postgraduates rated teaching and learning highly in the programme survey. The Faculty of Arts and the Faculty of Medicine and Health scored the highest and LUBS the lowest (see appendix P).

Student survey results suggest that undergraduates are less than satisfied in this area. Academic Support was the second lowest scoring category in the 2006 and 2007 NSS; though 2007 showed a slight overall improvement. The Faculties of Engineering, Biological Sciences, Arts, and MAPS each received the highest faculty mean score of 3.8 in 2006; Arts and Biological Sciences both achieved the highest score of 4.0 in 2007. ESSL, PVAC and LUBS all received the lowest faculty mean score of 3.6 in 2006, and ESSL and PVAC were also the lowest scoring faculties in 2007 (see appendix Q).

In responding to the 2006 NSS results in this area, the following examples of good practice have been reported by faculties to the Learning and Teaching Board (see appendix J):

• Personal tutoring system clearly explained in a revised Student Handbook, and the inclusion of photos, phone and room numbers, and email addresses of academic and administrative staff who can provide support to Joint Honours students (School of English).

• A sixth form college head giving a talk at staff away day about student support at college (School of Computing).

• A Chinese weekly ‘grammar club’ for level 2 students and Japanese conversation/homework club where level 2/3 students provide guidance for level 1 students, with regular input from tutors (School of Modern Languages and Cultures).

Both the Programme Survey and the NSS scored most highly for the question “I have been able to contact staff/my personal tutor when I needed to.” Students parented by the Lifelong Learning Centre and Foundation Year students returned the highest academic support scores in the Programme Survey, followed by students in the Faculty of Biological Sciences and MAPS. LUBS received the lowest faculty mean score, scoring particularly poorly in the question “I have received good quality personal support and guidance” (See appendix Q).

The Programme Survey also asked respondents about academic support with regards to dissertations, supervised projects and placements. Responses here were slightly more positive than for generic academic support (see appendix Q). Single and Joint Honours respondents diverged most significantly in their responses to the question “I have received appropriate supervision on placement,” where Joint Honours students were less satisfied. The order of faculty mean scores followed a similar pattern to the generic academic support section, with the Lifelong Learning Centre, Foundation Year, Biological Sciences and Arts at the top, and LUBS at the bottom.

Taught postgraduate programme survey scores for the academic support section are also shown in appendix Q. Unlike undergraduates, TPG respondents were equally satisfied with support on placements, dissertations and supervised projects as they were with generic support. ESSL received the highest score for academic support on placement, dissertations and projects; and Arts for generic support. LUBS was lowest scoring in both sections, along with Engineering for generic support.

The University-wide Student Experience Survey carried out in 2006 asked respondents to rate the quality of aspects of academic support on a scale of 1-5 (where 1 is least satisfied, and 5 most), and to rate the importance of each aspect of support on the same scale. Results from the survey are reported showing the ‘gap’, i.e. the importance minus the rating, for each item; a larger gap indicates a wider discrepancy between the importance of the service to students, and their opinion of the service they are actually receiving.

Tables IX shows the results relating to academic support for undergraduate and postgraduate taught students from the Student Experience Survey. The Student Support and Welfare category (which includes academic and non-academic support) was ranked below Library Resources, Accommodation, Computing Resources, University Environment, LUU, Administrative Processes and Careers Support in importance by undergraduate respondents, and was also rated below all of these categories, except Administrative Processes, in terms of quality.

Table IX: Taught students’ responses to the Student Experience Survey; academic support section.

The standards of pastoral support laid out by the partnership agreement are included in the Academic Support Section above. The Partnership Agreement does not contain a separate section on non-academic support.

Table X shows the ‘gap’ between respondents’ perceived importance and rating of aspects of non-academic support addressed by the Student Experience Survey. Academic and non-academic support were included in the same category, Student Support and Welfare, in the Student Experience Survey, which was ranked less important and rated below most other categories. Tables IX and X show the differences in the ‘gaps’ between taught students’ perceived importance and rating of academic and non-academic support. Overall academic support emerged as more important to respondents, but is rated roughly the same as non-academic support. Therefore while respondents indicate fairly equal levels of satisfaction with academic and non-academic support, academic support is apparently the more important of the two.

Table X: Taught student responses to the Student Experience Survey; non academic support section

This was the highest scoring category in both the 2006 and 2007 NSS and the Programme Survey, as well as showing the greatest improvement between the two NSS surveys. In 2006 the Faculties of Engineering, Environment, Medicine and Health, and MAPS achieved the highest NSS faculty mean score of 4.3. In 2007, Biological Sciences received the highest faculty mean score of 4.4. ESSL received the lowest faculty mean score in 2006; in 2007, ESSL, Medicine and Health and PVAC received the joint lowest faculty average scores of 4.1 (see appendix R).

Programme Survey responses show Joint Honours students to be more satisfied than Single Honours students across all of the questions in this category. Other than the Lifelong Learning Centre and Foundation Year, all faculties score above 4.0 (see appendix R). Biological Sciences was the highest scoring faculty among undergraduates and taught postgraduates.

Table XI indicates that students place a higher degree of importance on learning resources than they do on support and welfare; and that despite generally high levels of satisfaction there is still a small gap between their expectations and their experience.

Table XI: Taught student responses to the Student Experience Survey; learning resources section

This was the middle scoring category in the 2006 and 2007 NSS, and ranked bottom in the Programme Survey for undergraduate and postgraduates. Both surveys, however, asked respondents’ views on different specific aspects of their development, which may account in part for this difference. In the NSS, the highest faculty mean score of 4.1 was achieved by the Faculty of Medicine and Health and the Faculty of Environment in 2006, and by Medicine and Health and Biological Sciences in 2007. The School of Medicine and Dentistry achieved the highest individual item score of 4.5 for the question ‘My communication skills have improved,’ and again received the highest score of 4.6 for this item in 2007. MAPS and LUBS received the lowest faculty mean scores in 2006; and ESSL, MAPS and PVAC in 2007 (see appendix S). Schools report the following examples of good practice in response to the 2006 NSS results (see appendix J):

• Drop-in Careers sessions at lunch-times, organised with the Careers Centre (School of Sociology and Social Policy)

In the Programme Survey, undergraduate Joint Honours respondents were consistently less satisfied than Single Honours respondents regarding development opportunities. The largest gaps between Joint and Single Honours occur in responses to the questions “I have been given the opportunity to reflect on my development,” and “I have been encouraged to develop useful career skills,” and in the Faculty of Medicine and Health and PVAC. Overall taught postgraduates rated development opportunities more highly than undergraduates (see appendix S).

This was one of the lower-scoring categories in the 2006 and 2007 NSS, and a middle-scoring category in the Programme Survey. PVAC was the lowest-scoring faculty in the 2006 NSS; and Medicine and Health in 2007, with scores of 3.3 and 3.4 respectively. The Faculties of Arts and Environment were the highest-scoring faculties in 2006, and the Faculty of Arts achieved the highest score in 2007 (see appendix T).

In the Programme Survey, Foundation Year and Lifelong Learning students were the most satisfied with their programme organization. The Faculties of Arts and MAPS received the highest scores, and PVAC the lowest. Joint Honours students were consistently less satisfied than Single Honours students, other than in PVAC. The Faculty of Medicine and Health scored better among postgraduates than undergraduates in this category; other than this though the highest and lowest scoring faculties were similar (see appendix T).

Data used to assess part-time students’ views of the following categories has been taken from the Part-time Programme Evaluation, where unfortunately response rates are too low to allow any conclusions to be reached concerning the University’s part-time student body as a whole. They provide, however, a useful starting point in identifying areas where part-time students may be less satisfied.

Respondents appeared most satisfied with regards to learning and teaching, compared to the other themes addressed by the survey.

Table XII: Responses to part-time students’ Programme Evaluation, learning and teaching section



A frequently occurring sentiment in respondents’ comments was the high quality and ‘inspirational’ nature of teaching:

Table XIII: Responses to part-time students’ Programme Evaluation, academic support section.



There was no strongly emerging recurrent theme to respondents’ comments on academic support. Frequent comments were however made on the lack of clear module and programme information, which is discussed in Part Three of this report.

Table XIV shows results from part-time respondents to the Student Experience Survey to survey questions on academic support. Part-time respondents rated all of these items as slightly more important than full-time respondents, though they also rated the quality of support more highly.

Table XIV: Part-time students’ responses to Student Experience Survey, academic support section

Results from the Student Experience Survey show a much smaller gap between part-time students’ rating and importance of non-academic support, which is similar, though more striking, to the pattern of full-time undergraduate responses. Part-time students do not rate personal/welfare support particularly highly, but neither do they appear to perceive it as especially important.

Table XV: Part-time students’ responses to Student Experience Survey, non-academic support section

Table XVI shows that while the majority of respondents to the part-time students’ Programme Evaluation survey found library provision to be of high quality, fewer felt that they had been able to access quality learning materials and resources. This may be because these are less accessible to students who simply spend less time on campus, or have commitments outside of University which are more common to part-time than full-time students.

Table XVI: Responses to part-time students’ Programme Evaluation learning resources section.



In their comments, respondents praise the quality of the library facilities in particular:


Student Experience Survey results, shown in Table XVII show that part-time students rate computing and library resources as important. The gap between importance and quality rating may be due in part to the accessibility issues referred to above.

Table XVII: Part-time students’ responses to the Student Experience Survey; learning resources section

In general part-time students rated development opportunities slightly lower than other categories of their Programme Evaluation Survey considered in this submission.

Table XVIII: Responses to part-time students’ Programme Evaluation development opportunities section



Comments did not reveal a dominant theme, and were fairly evenly spread between the positive and the negative. A few respondents drew attention to specific difficulties they had encountered:


However, these are too few to indicate any generally recurring patterns.

78.6% of respondents to the Programme Evaluation Survey agreed or strongly agreed with the statement ‘the programme is well-organised.’ Comments relating to information provision, which may be considered an aspect of organization and management, are considered in section 3 of this report.

Table XIX shows reasonably high levels of satisfaction among PGR students regarding supervisory support and feedback, as well as increased numbers of respondents who agreed or strongly agreed to all of the questions which were asked in the 2006 as well as the 2004 survey.

Table XIX: Responses to Research Student Survey, supervisory support section

- :question not asked

Comments made by respondents highlight some recurring themes. Negative comments frequently referred to supervisors’ limited availability:

Other negative comments specified problems with supervisors who appeared to have little interest or expertise in the respondents’ research; and feedback being too slow. Positive comments tended to be quite general rather than picking out specific areas of good practice. Recurring positive experiences did include, however, supervisors who were ‘nice’ and/or supportive, readily available or who regularly attended scheduled meetings, and who appeared interested in and willing to support respondents’ research.

PGR responses to the Student Experience Survey show PGR students rate academic support as important as part-time students do, and slightly more important than full-time undergraduates. Overall the gap that exists between the importance and rating of academic support is slightly higher for PGR students than for other groups.

Table XX: PGR responses to Student Experience Survey, academic support section

Table XXI shows a low percentage of international PGR students accessing support from the Language Centre and International Students Centre. This cannot necessarily be equated with these services failing to address need as the survey does not provide any comprehensive assessment of this type of student need. The fact that 80.7% of 2004 respondents, and 90.7% of 2006 respondents, however, report that they are confident in their use of English for academic study and research suggests little discrepancy between those who might benefit from the English Language Centre’s support, and those who have made use of it.

Table XXI: Responses to Research Student Survey, non academic support section



The relatively small gaps between PGR students’ ratings and importance of non-academic support shown in table XXII are, as with other groups, accounted for in part by their view of this type of support as being of lower importance than other themes addressed by the Student Experience Survey. Like full-time undergraduates and part-time students, PGR students rate academic support as more important than support with personal/welfare issues.

Table XXII: PGR responses to Student Experience Survey, non academic support section

Table XXIII suggests that on the whole, Research Student Survey respondents are quite satisfied with the resources available to them. Improvements between 2004 and 2006 may indicate that Schools have improved facilities for PGR students, and/or succeeded in managing expectations, perhaps by communicating more effectively to PGR students with regards to what resources they can expect.

Table XXIII: Responses to Research Student Survey, learning resources section



Respondents’ comments (all comments are taken from the 2006 Research Student Survey)on learning resources focused more on the negative, which may be less indicative of the quality of resources than the fact that individuals are more likely to make a specific comment about a bad experience than an overall positive one. Lack of suitable working space for research students was frequently mentioned:


As were computing facilities:

Several respondents commented that they felt isolated; some as the result of working from home where they had access to better facilities. However, as the quantitative results to the survey shows, most respondents appear to be content with the resources available to them.

Student Experience Survey results indicate that PGR students perceive a smaller gap between their rating and importance of library resources than part-time and UG students, and a roughly similar gap between their rating and importance of computing resources. They rate the quality of both resources below UG students, and roughly equal to part-time students.

Table XXIV: PGR responses to Student Experience Survey, learning resources section

This category is unusual as, unlike other parts of the Research Student Survey considered here, it shows a decline in the number of respondents who answered favourably between the 2004 and 2006 surveys. This may be accounted for in part by changes to the wording of questions between the two surveys.

Table XXV: Responses to Research Student Survey, development opportunities section



Tables XXVI and XXVII below show slightly more positive results, from both surveys, in relation to the planning and reviewing of personal development. However overall this is one of the lowest scoring areas in the Research Student Survey considered here.

Table XXVI: 2004 Responses to Research Student Survey, development opportunities section.



Table XXVII: 2006 Responses to Research Student Survey, development opportunities section



Several respondents made positive comments about SDDU training courses they had attended. Comments also drew attention to the difficulties in fitting training into busy research schedules; and accessing Leeds-based training for part-time and distance students.

Programme Survey and NSS results show that both the highest and lowest-scoring faculties and themes are reasonably consistent. Academic support and personal development appear to be aspects of the student experience which undergraduates are least satisfied with. Programme survey results also highlight the difference in the experience of Single and Joint Honours students; Joint Honours students expressing less satisfaction with most aspects of their experience.

Quantitative survey responses do not provide detailed insight into the specific reasons for this; in any case, these are likely to vary from student to student and from school to school. However, it is possible that apparent dissatisfaction in these areas may be due in part to students’ expectations on entering HE, which are likely to be informed by the very different experience of ‘A’ level study. In Faculties which scored poorly in these categories, it is equally important to examine ways in which student expectations can be managed as it is to improve academic support and development opportunities. Sharing good practice among Schools and Faculties to ensure this is consistent as far as possible may help enhance the student experience.

Respondents to the Part-time Students’ Programme Evaluation survey are overwhelmingly positive with regards to their experience of teaching and of learning resources. Specific issues occurring from the survey relate more, perhaps not surprisingly, to accessing resources rather than their quality. Comments about book boxes suggest that there is room for improvement to systems which aim to ensure equity of access to resources for part-time students.

Fewer respondents were as positive about development opportunities. It may be that mature students seeking specifically to enhance their careers are over-represented among part-time students, and consequently development opportunities are particularly important to this group. If this is the case it is important that part-time students are made aware of and able to access existing opportunities.

Overall, responses to the Research Student Surveys show general satisfaction with most aspects of the PGR experience, but also highlight the extent to which this can vary depending on individuals’ supervisors or School. Inadequate PGR work space and a lack of community, or feelings of isolation were frequently mentioned by respondents, suggesting that PGRs in general would benefit from Graduate Schools which provide physical communal space as well as fulfilling administrative functions. The most problematic category for PGRs considered here is training and development, which seems to be indicative of the difficulties both students and supervisors face in finding adequate time to devote to this. Training and development may therefore benefit from a more formal emphasis in PGR programmes.

Development opportunities emerge as an area in which undergraduates, part-time and PGR students all express lower levels of satisfaction. The Institution’s Briefing Paper for this audit acknowledges that Personal Development Plans (PDPs) are not systematically used across the University, and this would seem to be reflected in student survey results. The recently instigated Leeds for Life project seeks to ensure that upon graduation students are able to articulate the full range of skills gained from their degrees. It may be that students are simply not aware of the opportunities for personal development available to them, in order to take advantage of these.