Purpose of Student Representation

Three themes were identified for resps responses to the purpose of representation. The majority fell into the same category of being the student voice and forming a bridge between students and staff (Table 1.1).

Table 1.1

Best thing about being a rep

Five themes were identified for the best thing about being a rep. Most comments fell into the category of making a difference/helping others. Miscellaneous comments included responsibility, trust, and the experience (Table 1.2).

Table 1.2

What reps are doing (and not doing)

Supporting effective communication between staff and students and providing feedback on issues affecting students were the two most completed rep activities with 92% of reps responded they tended to do these (Figure 1.1).
Providing a channel for student complaints and representing student views at programme committee meetings were done by 82% and 80% of reps respectively (Figure 1.1).
40% of reps felt that organising social events should not be part of their role (Figure 1.1).
Of the 40% of reps that did not log feedback from students to Speak Up!, 36% felt they should be doing this (Figure 1.1).
68% of reps did not give a student perspective on academic staff recruitment panels but 56% felt they should (Figure 1.1). 81% of reps responded they felt they effectively represent students views (Figure 1.2).

Figure 1.1

Figure 1.2

Reps views on the Univeristy and Students’ Union

71% of reps responded they were satisfied with the University (Figure 1.3) and 88% responded they were satisfied with the Students’ Union (Figure 1.4).
Despite this, only 45% responded they felt part of the Students’ Union rep team to at least a moderate extent (Figure 1.5), and 55% would feel comfortable approaching the Students’ Union for support to a moderate extent (Figure 1.6).
Only 9% of reps felt that the support provided by the Students’ Union was poor, with 64% rating it at least good (Figure 1.7).
88% of reps agreed that they had the opportunities to provide feedback and 77% agreed the Students’ Union effectively represents students’ academic interests (Figure 1.8).
Only 52% of reps agreed that it is clear how feedback has been acted upon (Figure 1.8).

Figure 1.3

Figure 1.4

Figure 1.5

Figure 1.6

Figure 1.7

Figure 1.8

Rep views on the staff team

There was high agreement for the majority of statements asked to reps about staff, with the lowest response being 66% agreeing that staff encourage reps to give feedback (Figure 1.9).
The highest agreement was for staff meetings being valuable with 81% agreeing and just 4% disagreeing (Figure 1.9).

Figure 1.9

Rep recruitment and training

Forty-nine respondents described the recruitment process for them becoming a rep. Thirty-four respondents stated they volunteered to become a rep. One stated they were selected without volunteering as no-one in the class had volunteered. Fourteen respondents stated they were selected by the programme leader whilst twelve stated they were selected via a class election (Figure 1.10).
67% of respondents said the role was described accurately prior to appointment but 23% disagreed (Figure 1.10).
Only 9% of reps who attended the training were disappointed with it (Figure 1.11).
Figure 1.10

Figure 1.11

Suggestions for improvements

Forty-eight comments were recieved for the question: What one thing would improve your experience as a rep? (Table 1.3).
Seventeen comments suggested more meetings with programme leaders would be beneficial.
Ten comments suggested creating more of a rep community as many reps mentioned they had few opportunities to meet with other reps out-with their course.
Eight comments suggested more SU support would help. Most of these comments did not suggest what this support would look like, but of those that did monthly report emails and check-ups were suggested.
Five comments discussed student feedback and suggested better ways of capturing student feedback such as online forums/social media platforms that are anonymous.
Introspective comments refer to specific things that reps said would have improved their experience, e.g. talking with more students or announcing themselves as a rep at the beginning of the course.
A large number of comments have placed into a Miscellaneous category as they were mentioned only once. These included increased recognition, being able to look at previously posted feedback on Speak Up!, access to student contact details, and better incentives.

Table 1.3

Suggestions for the Students’ Union

Twenty-nine suggestions were provided by respondents for how the Students’ Union can better support programme reps (Table 1.4).
Communication was the most frequently mentioned suggestions, with most asking for more meetings. Meetings suggested varied for meetings with SU staff, meetings with other reps on the course, meetings with reps on other courses, and meetings between departmental and programme reps.
All other suggestions were mentioned infrequently, but several were related to training.

Table 1.4

Purpose of representation

Twenty-nine responses were received for the purpose of representation which could be grouped into four themes. Twenty-eight respondents’ comments could be grouped into a single theme, indicating that the purpose of representation is well known and established (Table 2.1).

Table 2.1

Means of gathering student input (other than representation)

Eleven different means of gathering student input were mentioned. Feedback came from two main sources: informal discussions with students and surveys.
Respondents mentioned eleven different means of gathering student input. The majority of these were infrequently mentioned (seven were mentioned no more than twice). Informal discussions were mentioned by 23/29 respondents. Surveys were also mentioned frequently (13/29 respondents) (Table 2.2).

Table 2.2

Student voice impact at the programme level

There was high agreement that the student voice makes an impact at the programme level with 22 programme leaders responding yes and only one responding no. Reasons given for the student voice making an impact included enabling changes to be made [15 comments], allowing explanations for why changes cannot be made [2 comments], identifying strengths [2 comments], and enabling questions to be asked to students [1 comment] (Figure 2.1).
Six respondents stated the student voice only occasionally makes an impact. Reasons given for this included: students often don’t see the wider picture [1 comment], reps don’t provide enough feedback [1 comment], feedback is not always representative [1 comment], their isn’t sufficient engagement [1 comment], and feedback is provided in areas where changes are not possible [1 comment].

Figure 2.1

Key strengths of programme representation at Northumbria University

Strengths of representation can be grouped into four main themes: Communication, Students’ Union Support, Benefits to students, and No strengths (Table 2.3).
Communication was mentioned most frequently [18 comments]. This included receiving good feedback (e.g. representative, fair, helpful), providing a point of contact (for students to reps, and for reps to staff), providing students with a voice, and facilitating change through feedback. Feedback was mentioned most frequently [10/18 comments].
Other themes included receiving good support from the Students’ Union [4 comments] and providing direct benefits to reps through employability skills, opportunities for reflection, and responsibility [3 comments].
Six Miscellaneous comments were received. These mentioned transparency/trust in the rep system, strong engagement, diversity of reps, and the rep system being well publicised.
Two comments stated that there were no strengths to the rep system.

Table 2.3

Barriers to implementing change in response to student input

Four themes were identified for barriers to implemeting change: Time, Poor quality feedback, Lack of budget and resources, and Lack of authority (Table 2.4).
Time was the most frequent barrier mentioned. Respondents stated that University procedures caused changes to modules (even minor) to take a long time [6 comments]. Most of these comments suggested they felt this could be a shorter process. Other comments related to time said staff have limited time to create improvements [4 comments], and sometimes the time required to check whether changes would be beneficial if implemented can be long [4 comments].
Lack of authority referred to change being out-with the programme leaders authority and being the responsibility of more senior managers.
Poor quality feedback stemmed from feedback being anecdotal and unrepresentative of the student cohort, not viable, or lacking supportive evidence.
Miscellaneous comments included reps not pushing issues hard enough, programmes being credited by professional agencies so change having to align with creditation guidelines, and feedback being reactive to changes not coming into place until the following academic year.

Table 2.4

Suggestions for improvements to the student voice/input at Northumbria?

Twenty-six suggestions were recieved for improvements to the student voice. These suggestions were mostly unique but directed at 4 audiences: Students [5 comments], Reps [4 comments], Northumbria University [11 comments], and the Students’ Union [2 comments] (Table 2.5).

Table 2.5 - Please note, all responses have been summarised for clarity purposes.

Impact of the Student Lead Teaching Awards (SLTA) on teaching

Most programme leaders responded that the SLTA had not had an impact on their teaching (14 No; 7 Yes; 8 Unsure) (Figure 2.2).
From those that said it had an impact, three mentioned that it boosted staff morale, three didn’t mention how it had an impact, and one mentioned that they include it in their review process.
Many comments mentioned that the awards were beneficial for other reasons. The benefits mentioned were: Recognition (13 comments), Career advancement (1 comment), and a Shield from criticism.

Figure 2.2

Best practices

Fifteen examples of best practices were provided (Table 2.6).

Table 2.6