This section summarises the key points to emerge from each of the ‘questions’ considered in this submission. It will compare these to the University’s obligations under the Partnership Agreement and its goals under the Strategy Map (appendix W)and suggest a set of recommendations under each.

Key points from existing research:

• Existing data from student surveys offers little insight into whether information published by the University in its prospectus, on its website etc is an accurate reflection of the student experience.

• Research from undergraduate induction strongly suggests that students want more detailed pre-arrival information, specifically regarding module choices

The University’s Learning and Teaching Partnership Agreement states that the University will “provide detailed information on programmes of study to inform student choice.” Student survey results for full-time and part-time undergraduates and to an extent PGR students suggest a need for development in this area.

Recommendations:

• Continue to centrally review induction, share findings and encourage the implementation of improvements and sharing of good practice with regards to pre-arrival course information.

Key points from existing research:

• Awareness of the Partnership Agreement among students is low, which limits its effectiveness as a means of communicating expectations;

• Students value feedback from assessed work and are less than satisfied with provision of feedback;

• Students arrive at university with varying experience and expectations, and academic requirements are not always communicated effectively to some groups, for example international students;

• Academic and disciplinary regulations are not accessible to some students.

The Partnership Agreement specifies that Schools will “provide systematic and timely feedback on assessed work.” Low levels of satisfaction around feedback suggest that many students do not feel that this occurs. The Partnership Agreement also states that Schools will “maintain a document detailing the assessment policies and practices within the school.” Survey data unfortunately does not tell us whether this is the case, and whether some students are dissatisfied because their School is failing to meet the obligations set out by this document. However a lack of clarity of what to expect regarding feedback is likely to contribute to students’ dissatisfaction.

The Strategy Map, under key theme T8 (‘Provide and excellent student experience’) states that ‘we clearly communicate our role and responsibility, and our expectation of students, through our student contract.” The findings of this submission suggest that while roles, responsibilities and expectations are clearly set out, work is needed to ensure these are effectively communicated.

Recommendations:

• Increasing awareness of the Partnership Agreement and its related Codes of Practice may help manage expectations, as well as encourage students to use the Agreement in addressing areas where there is a genuine lack of provision by their School or the University;

• Effective mechanisms are put in place to monitor whether any groups of students are more likely to be subject to academic and disciplinary procedures, and to investigate and address reasons for this if and when it occurs to ensure that no one group is disadvantaged;

• The language of University rules and academic procedures should be reviewed to ensure their transparency and clarity is not compromised, in order that the University meets its obligation under the Partnership Agreement to operate “fair and transparent” disciplinary rules and “transparent and clear mechanisms” for considering complaints and appeals.

Key points from existing research:

• Students are generally satisfied with teaching and with learning resources;

• Problems with accessing learning resources for some part-time students;

• PGR students who feel they lack adequate work space or community in their Schools;

• Lower levels of satisfaction with personal development opportunities among undergraduate and PGR students.

More positive student feedback on the standard of learning resources in comparison with LUU’s previous QAA submission demonstrate the improvements that have been made in an area identified by students as central to their experience, and to the University’s Strategy Map. Personal development of students is also key to the University’s strategy map, in its recognition that students expect “an education that creates excellent career opportunities” and its statement that “we also provide an environment, opportunities and experiences that ensure our students develop citizenship, personal and life skills.”

Recommendations

• More effective systems to address difficulties in accessing resources for PT students;
• Graduate Schools to consider ways of managing expectations around PGR workspace and fostering community among PGR students;
• More formal emphasis and recording of personal development on undergraduate and PGR degrees.

Key points from the research:

• Faculty and School-level support for UARs and course representatives is variable;

• Students view the effectiveness of representation systems as variable and identify responsibility for this as lying with students as well as with Schools.

A key theme of the University’s Strategy Map is to “provide and exceptional student experience,” and under this heading the Strategy Map states that this means “we will understand and define what an excellent student experience is from the student’s perspective.” Elsewhere in the Strategy Map, it is stated that “we listen and respond to student feedback and provide value for money.” Value for money is likely to become of increasing concern to students as tuition fees rise. In fulfilling these aims it is crucial that not only is the University able to demonstrate to students how it is responding to feedback gathered in student surveys, particularly in light of concerns about over-surveying, but that schools seek to support and develop genuine consultation with student representatives.

Recommendations:

• All schools to recruit course representatives and identify reps to LUU; and to monitor reps’ attendance at meetings and staff:student forums;

• Faculties to provide support to UARs, for example by providing contact details of course reps and space to hold meetings;

• Schools to communicate as a matter of course with students regarding specific changes put in place in response to student suggestions and feedback.