Hertfordshire Students' Union: Student Experience Report 2014

Introduction 3

Methodology 4

Executive Summary 5

Section 1 - Students’ Academic Experience 10

1. Student representation 10

2. Assessment and feedback 12

3. Organisation and management 16

4. Teaching and learning 20

5: Academic support 23

Section 2 - Non-academic Experience 26

6. Transport 26

7: Social provision/pricing 28

8. Student employment within the University 30

Conclusion/Summary 31

Last Year’s Recommendations - An update and reflection 32

3

Introduction

The Hertfordshire Students’ Union Student Experience Report is a compilation of students’

thoughts, feedback and experiences from the past year. Themes are drawn from a number

of sources, including: the NSS, the Student Barometer and the PTES surveys, the Students’

Union’s own all-student survey and the Student Ideas Forum. Our recommendations have

been developed directly from student feedback in order to assist the University and the

Students’ Union in improving the student experience.

This report is in its second year, and has report has been divided into the following sections:

Academic experience

Student representation

Assessment and feedback quality

Organisation and management and communication

Teaching and learning, including teaching styles

Academic support and student/staff contact time

Non-academic experience

Transport

Cost of facilities on campus

Social space on campus

Employment within the University

These sections explore in detail the different elements of the student experience at the

University, giving recommendations that we hope will lead to the further development of the

student experience.

We’ve also reflected on last year’s report, noting changes made as a result of student

feedback. Hertfordshire Students’ Union has been delighted to see so many

recommendations being implemented, and we look forward to continuing to work in

partnership in order to improve what is already a positive student experience.

We thank everyone who has contributed their time and feedback to the Hertfordshire

Students’ Union Student Experience report, allowing us to move forward and build on our

achievements together.

Rana Omer

Farooq

Vice President

Education and

Welfare

Isabella

Colafrancesco

Vice President

Student Activities

Jack Amos

Vice President

Democracy and

Services

Shannen Rock

Vice President

Communications

& Media

Gurpreet Singh

President

4

Methodology

The Hertfordshire Students’ Union Student Experience Report is produced by the Union’s

Research and Representation team in association with the Union’s Elected Officer and

Senior Management team.

Recommendations are made at the end of each section and are summarised in the

executive summary.

The report draws on the feedback provided by students through a variety sources (see

below), which are analysed and drawn together thematically to give a comprehensive view of

the student experience at the University of Hertfordshire. Caution has been taken when

comparing PTES data to NSS due to the different populations overall and varying

populations within schools.

Source Population Number of

Respondents

Type of Data

National Student

Survey (NSS) 2014 4704 3607

Quantitative and

Qualitative

Post Graduate

Taught Survey

Postgraduate Taught

Students 1394

Quantitative and

Qualitative

Hertfordshire SU

Survey 2014 All students 2305

Quantitative and

Qualitative

Destination of

Leavers of Higher

Education 2014

Alumni 2315 Quantitative

Student Ideas

Submissions * All Students 523 Qualitative

Student

Representative

Experience Survey

628 133 Quantitative and

Qualitative

Student Barometer

2012

First & Second Year

Undergraduates;

Postgraduates

4290 Quantitative and

Qualitative

Student Focus

Groups

Placement Students

Retail Users 83 Qualitative

Comments extracted from all the qualitative feedback are used throughout this survey to

reinforce the themes. Comments from the SU Survey 2013/14 and the Student Ideas

Database are available on request from [email protected].

The SU welcomes responses to the recommendations in the report. Where

recommendations affect the SU, we have responded in the report.

*Student Ideas are largely unprompted student feedback. They are submitted by students,

with the intention of impacting an issue that affects them, in turn improving the student

experience.

mailto:[email protected]

5

Executive Summary

This report outlines issues related to the overall experience at the University of Hertfordshire

that students care the most about. The feedback received relates to both academic and

non-academic experiences of students. This year, the majority of student concerns related

to:

Academic experience

Student representation

Assessment and feedback quality

Organisation and management and communication

Teaching and learning, including teaching styles

Academic support and student/staff contact time

Non-academic experience

Transport

Cost of facilities on campus

Social space on campus


Hertfordshire Students’ Union has identified key recommendations on which we would

welcome the opportunity to work in partnership with the University to achieve.

Within these are some specific suggestions for development of the student experience which

can be made, providing a focus for how the University and Students’ Union can work

together to achieve these objectives.

Academic experience recommendations

Recommendation 1:

Increase the effectiveness of student representation

i) In order to ensure Student Reps are as effective as possible, we recommend that the

Student Representation Engagement Group establish an action plan to increase

awareness of Student Reps both from a student and a staff point of view and that the

Group actively engage academic staff to ensure that every course has active and

supported Student Reps.

ii) In order to ensure that a) outcomes achieved by Student Reps are maximised and b) that

Student Reps are as effective as possible in their roles, we suggest that an enhanced

induction for Student Reps is developed (building on the success of Repstival) and that

further development opportunities for Student Reps are invested in. Ensure that the

Students’ Union actively collect feedback on outcomes from Student Reps and share

these as best practice amongst Student Reps and UH academic staff..

iii) Ensure that SSROs fulfil no representative function in order that Student Reps can fulfil

their role fully

iv) Review the committees that representatives from the Students’ Union participate in in

order to ensure student representation at all levels of the University.

6

v) Appropriate levels of student representation will be agreed with the Students’ Union

in advance of all working groups and committees via VCSU.

Recommendation 2:

Implement a full review of Assessment and Feedback mechanisms, timelines and

effectiveness.

We acknowledge that there is now a full review of Assessment and Feedback being

undertaken – we really welcome this review and look forward participating in the review. We

recommend that the review consider:

i) The impact of assignment clustering on students’ learning outcomes and a

commitment to reduce this as much as practically possible.

ii) Adherence with the four week return is not consistent across the university, therefore

adherence with this regulation should me be made a priority and enforced

rigorously.

iii) The Students’ Union has previously recommended and continues to recommend that the

University should consider reducing the time permitted for the return of assessed

work to 15 University working days and ensure that this is enforced rigorously.

iv) The Students’ Union has previously recommended that the University adopt the ten

principles of good feedback practice as detailed in the NUS Assessment and Feedback

briefing paper – this has been agreed in principle. We are delighted with this and hope

that, as part of the Assessment and Feedback review, some gap analysis be included

to understand where various schools are in terms of their implementation of the 10

principles of good feedback practice. We also recommend that the Union seek

feedback from students on their perceptions on how these ten principles are

impacting them. We would like to specifically highlight that anonymous marking – one

of the 10 principles – be included in this review as we have previously recommended that

this be examined.

Recommendation 3:

Continue to improve and review communications with students regarding:

timetabling, changes to students’ courses, cross-school working and placement

arrangements, setting minimum standards that must be adhered to across the board

i) We suggest that the implementation and improvements made to the centralised

timetable continue to be monitored in order to ensure that student feedback is actively

sought and acted upon. Ideally, an annual paper submitted to SEEC would be

implemented, and the Students’ Union would welcome the opportunity to work with the

University on seeking student feedback around the topic.

ii) We have previously recommended that the University’s communication methods with

students be reviewed. We stand by this recommendation, and we suggest that

University emails (ie, @herts.ac.uk emails) are re-introduced (with a more modern

student interface). Additionally, we welcome continued involvement in the review of

StudyNet.

iii) Ensure that any changes are communicated to students in a timely and consistent

manner, potentially utilising the ability to text students where appropriate.

iv) Establish a working group with appropriate student representation to review processes for

cross school working to ensure a consistent and robust approach to cross school

working.

7

v) We recommend that a systematic approach to monitoring the quality of students’

experiences prior to and whilst on placement be implemented and an annual report

and action plan be presented to SEEC.

Recommendation 4:

Continue to improve the positive developments made surrounding teaching and

learning techniques

We believe that it is excellent that scores in Teaching and Learning are beginning to show

improvements at all levels and 250 members of academic staff are taking up CPD

opportunities through the Learning and Teaching Innovation Centre. There has been a

decrease in the number of comments this year about the variable quality of visiting lecturers

and the type of teaching styles, but there were still concerns highlighted in these areas.

i) Hertfordshire Students’ Union to work with the Learning Teaching Innovation

Centre and the Centre for Academic Quality Assurance to look at School level MFQ

data to better understand the students’ academic experience. We would recommend

that representatives from the SU are invited to attend School Academic Committees

and other senior school committees/meetings to embed the relationship at school

level, with the aim of continuous improvement and the development of initiatives at a

school level focused on improving the student experience. We feel by localising the

relationship outside of the current committee meetings (For example, CEG, Academic

Board, SEEC and ASAC) the schools will strengthen the relationship between students,

the Students Union and schools.

ii) We suggest that the use of visiting lecturers is reviewed annually in each school in

order to ensure a) they are adhering to teaching standards that are in place for

permanent staff and b) are relevant to the subject matter and add value in terms of

‘outside world’ experience. We also ask that information regarding lecturer hours

compared to the total lecturer teaching hours by school (i.e. excluding research time)

be published to students and Hertfordshire Students’ Union.

Recommendation 5:

Continue to develop the improvements made to academic support with a view

towards sharing best practices across schools

There are some excellent examples of best practice in this area – particularly notable are the

effective systems in place within the schools of Creative Arts, Education and Physics,

Astronomy and Mathematics, where these schools have scored above the sector.

i) We recommend that contact time with lecturers is reviewed at programme level

against the sector in order to identify any potential gaps or areas of best practice. Where

there is found to be a significant shortfall against the sector mean for the subject area,

measures should be put in place to address this as quickly as possible.

ii) We appreciate that to re-introduce personal tutors across the University may not be

feasible for an institution of this size. We therefore recommend that an investigation is

carried out to assess the options available for introducing a modern form of

personal tutoring across the University. One suggestion is that students are given a

named contact point within their schools to be able to contact upon request. This works

successfully in Life and Medical Sciences where there are a group tutor sessions which

are supported by one to one sessions on request and we recommend that this option be

8

explored to see if feasible in other schools in order to ensure students are receiving a

consistent experience regardless of their school of study.

Non-academic experiences recommendations

Recommendation 6:

Hertfordshire Students’ Union and the University work together to support and

promote the transport options available on campus

i) In 2013/14, we received a number of Student Ideas raising an issue with Uno Bus. We

followed this up and presented a series of recommendations in autumn 14 to the Vice

Chancellor Student Union Group (VCSU):

Increased student communications about service improvements – we feel the

Open Letters are helpful, but should also feature updates following through

suggestions that have been made.

Make a customer service charter (or similar organisational values overview)

publicly available and specifically publicise this to students and staff.

Uno to be invited to attend an upcoming Student Ideas Forum as part of a

panel discussion featuring representatives from the University, senior

management of Uno and The Uno Board to hear student feedback and for Uno to

update students on service improvements – our aim is to enable students to better

understand the fuller picture around UNO Bus and where the responsibilities lie for

various facets of the bus service within the University community.

The Students’ Union has invited Uno be interviewed for Universe following on

from the article from Issue 3 of UniVerse (dated 17 November 2014) – this is being

coordinated with UH Marcomms.

Driver training and recruitment to be reviewed – this has been raised at the

Stakeholder meeting, and committed to by Uno. We recommend that as a starting

point, the job description on the website could be reconsidered in order to outline

from the offset what is expected of Uno Bus drivers.

We recommend Uno Bus issue drivers with comment cards in the hope that

they will alleviate passenger frustration, diffuse conflict on the buses and help

direct students to the right communications channel in order that they can receive

feedback on their complaints. We would ultimately hope that this could assist the

buses in adhering to timetables as these could relieve potential arguments with

passengers (Appendix 7.1.4).

The Students’ Union can assist with a campaign promoting the Intalink app.

This contains the real-time tracking information for buses, which again may

alleviate some passenger frustrations.

We have previously recommended a service helpline that mirrors the hours of

service. The current helpline is in operation from 8am – 5pm, whereas the buses

operational hours are approx. 6am – 3.30am. We strongly support increasing

these hours to at least cover the morning and evening rush hour periods.

ii) There appears to be conflicting information about student parking on campus – both in

terms of cost and availability. While many of these changes are temporary due to building

works, we feel additional student communication or clearer signage about the

availability and cost of parking on campus would alleviate many of these issues.

9

Recommendation 7:

Review pricing on campus and social provision on de Havilland to ensure

consistency and appropriateness

i) Offer services at a variety of price points to suit various student budgetary restrictions

The Students’ Union is committed to charging fair prices for goods and services, and we

believe the University feels the same way. However, we recommend that pricing is

reviewed in the following outlets in order to ensure that student-friendly pricing is

available:

SU shops on both campuses

Forum/EleHouse

Food Hertfordshire food outlets

Club de Havilland

Hertfordshire Sports Village

On campus parking

LRC printing costs and fines

Athletic Union

Nursery Fees

On campus accommodation

Where price reductions are not possible, we recommend that alternative value products

are offered and promoted effectively.

ii) Investigate the possibility of increased social space and social opportunities on de

Havilland. With the introduction of the new halls on the College Lane Campus and the

increased social space on College Lane (in addition to the new Chapman Lounge, the

Oval, Café RØRE and Hutton Hub, the Forum and the EleHouse are continually being

invested in to ensure they are market-leading), there is an increased sense that the de

Havilland campus does not offer sufficient social space. We recommend that this is

considered and addressed in order to ensure students living and studying on both

campuses have access to a similar calibre of social spaces, both licenced and non-

licenced.

Recommendation 8:


The Students’ Union employs 180-200 students per year, on average. At this point in time,

we are unsure of how many students are employed by the University. We recommend that

the University and the Students’ Union both commit to employing students in part-time

and temporary roles wherever possible. We also recommend that both the University and

the Students’ Union are transparent about advertising part-time roles on campus and

share information across services in order to ensure students have access to as much

information as possible on how to secure on-campus part-time roles.

10

Section 1 - Students’ Academic Experience 1. Student representation

The University of Hertfordshire had over 600 Student Representatives in 2013/14 who

worked with University staff, Students’ Union staff and Elected Officers to improve the

student experience for all students by ensuring they have a voice at course and school level.

The system is run in partnership through the Student Representation Engagement Group,

who work to develop the system across the university.

Student Reps were supported by 24 School Student Rep Organisers in 2013/14 who

coordinated the reps and promoted a collaborative approach to problem solving by

facilitating discussions and cross-discipline problem solving.

1a: Student Representation and the wider student community

Figure 1, taken from the Student Union

Survey indicates that 80% of students show

knowledge of the system with just under two

thirds knowing who their Student Rep is.

39% of students not knowing who their

elected representative is concerning and

raises a number of questions such as:

Are elections for Student

Representatives happening on

every course?

Does every course have Student

Representatives?

Do all academic staff consistently

support student representation at

course level?

When asked about how effective students

are in bringing about change on things that

affect them, 67% of students who were surveyed in the SU survey 13/14 felt that they were

able to make changes on academic issues and 64% indicated that they were able to make

changes on non-academic issues.

Recommendation 1i):

In order to ensure Student Reps are as effective as possible, we recommend that the

Student Representation Engagement Group establish an action plan to increase

awareness of Student Reps both from a student and a staff point of view and that the

Group actively engage academic staff to ensure that every course has active and supported

Student Reps.

61% 19%

20%

Student Rep Awareness

Know who theirStudent Rep is

Aware of Student Reps, but don’t know who theirs is

Unaware thatthere areStudent Reps

Figure 1: Levels of Student Representative

Awareness (SU Survey 2013/14)

11

1b: Effectiveness of Student Representatives At the end of the 2013/14 academic year, the Students’ Union surveyed the Student

Representatives, with 68% indicating that their experience was either good or very good.

69% of Student Reps felt supported by their school, and 63% felt supported by the Students’

Union.

Student Reps indicate that a perceived apathy from students is a barrier to obtaining

feedback which can be effective in bringing about change. 28% of the open text comments

in the Student Rep Experience Survey indicate that gathering feedback is a challenge. An

example of this is:

“Acquiring any sort of feedback from fellow students is incredibly difficult. They just don't seem

bothered about the university experience. Or if they are they feel it's too much effort just providing

some basic feedback!”

(Student Rep Experience Survey, 2014)

Whilst it is clear that Student Reps can struggle to get feedback from students, students

indicate through the SU Survey 2013/14 that they do have a desire to provide feedback and

implement change.

Further to this, Student Representatives indicated that the training provided by the Students’

Union in 13/14 was inadequate, with only 44% stating that they felt the contact was relevant

to their role. The Union has taken actions to resolve this in 2014-15.

Recommendation 1ii):

In order to ensure that a) outcomes achieved by Student Reps are maximised and b) that

Student Reps are as effective as possible in their roles, we suggest that an enhanced

induction for Student Reps is developed (building on the success of Repstival) and that

further development opportunities for Student Reps are invested in. Ensure that the

Students’ Union actively collect feedback on outcomes from Student Reps and share

these as best practice amongst Student Reps and UH academic staff.

Recommendation 1iii):

Ensure that SSROS fulfil no representative function in order that Student Reps can fulfil

their role fully

1c: Students’ Committee Representation and Working Groups

Students are currently represented on the majority of University committees including the

Board of Governors and Academic Board. Currently, in partnership with the Union, students

are not represented on Chief Executive Group, Academic Development Committee and

Research Committee.

Further to from last year’s Student Experience Report, the Union still feels it is beneficial for

50% of members on all relevant University and Union working groups to be students.

A full list of meetings, where the union represents students is available, on request from

[email protected].

mailto:[email protected]

12

Recommendation 1iv):

Review the committees that representatives from the Students’ Union participate in in

order to ensure student representation at all levels of the University.

Recommendation 1v):

Appropriate Levels of student representation will be agreed with the Students’ Union in

advance of all working groups and committees via VCSU.

2. Assessment and feedback

There are clear differences in students’ views on Assessment and Feedback based on their

level of study. Undergraduates, whilst showing a small increase from 2013 of 2% (NSS

2014), still indicate that they are dissatisfied in this area, with UH being 6% below the sector

mean at 66%. This is echoed by a number of ‘Ideas’ (e.g. comment card submissions) we

have received on this subject through the Student Ideas Forum. Additionally, 12% of the

3,687 free text comments we received on our own survey in response to the question

“Outside of course fees, if you could change any three issues related to your time/

experience at UH, what would they be?” related to Assessment and Feedback.

Postgraduate students

indicate in the PTES that

they are more satisfied in

this area with an above

sector score of 75%.

Historically, scores in this

area have been lower than

the sector mean, which is

evident in the NSS trend

data in Figure 2 and the

2012 Student Barometer

(where the University scored

below competitors for

assessment with a score of

88.3% (-0.9%) and below the

sector and competitors for

feedback with a score of

77% against scores of

78.3% and 81.3%

respectively).

The bar chart in Figure 3 indicates that a number of schools are falling short of the sector

mean in this area. The Business School, Engineering and Technology and Law are

considerably short of the sector. It should be noted that Creative Arts and Physics,

Astronomy and Mathematics both exceeded the sector in this area. These schools are to be

congratulated, and good practice within these schools should be explored. Comments from

56 58 62

66 66 66 64 66

62 64 64 66 68 70 71 72

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

UH Assessment and Feedback NSS Scores 2011-14

UH

Sector

Figure 2: Line graph showing the UH NSS mean scores for

assessment and feedback 2011-2014

13

the NSS, PTES, Student Barometer

and the SU Survey 2013/14 indicate

that the following areas are of

concern to students:

Assessment clustering

Promptness of feedback

Quality and consistency of

feedback

2a: Assessment clustering

Student comments, particularly in

the NSS, indicate that this is a

significant issue for them. They

report that there are times when

they go lengthy periods with no

assignments which is then followed

by a number due in a close period

of time.

“Deadlines for assignments tend to be around the same time. Making it hard to complete assignments

to a high level while keeping up-to-date with lectures and tutorials.”

(Joint Honours, NSS 2014)

“Sometimes assignments have been too close together. So, there's been a big period of just nothing,

and then you have two things due in at the same time. It would be better spread out.”

(HHSPO, NSS 2014)

“Spread out the project deadlines. 6 projects in one week is nearly impossible. It puts health and

safety concerns second.”

(Post Graduate, SU Survey 2014)

If assessment clustering is avoided, as well as benefiting students, this could also reduce

pressure on academic staff who currently have to mark this work within a four week window.

Recommendation 2i)

We acknowledge that there is now a full review of Assessment and Feedback being

undertaken– we really welcome this review and look forward participating in the review. We

recommend that the review consider:

The impact of assignment clustering on students’ learning outcomes and a

commitment to reduce this as much as practically possible

66 61

68 73

69

58 66 69

59 67

78

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

UH

HB

S

CO

M

CTA

EDU

ENT

HSK

HU

M

LAW

LMS

PA

M

UH NSS 2014 Assessment and Feedback Questions

NSS

Sector Mean

Figure 3: Mean percentage scores by school for the Assessment and

Feedback questions for the NSS 2014

79

14

2b: Promptness

As Figure 4 indicates, there is a considerable

gap in this area, particularly Q7 – ‘Feedback on

my work has been prompt’. This was evident in

the 2012 Student Barometer where the

University achieved a score of 77% for

feedback against a sector mean of 78.3% and

our competitors achieving 81.3%. This is a

concerning result when taking into account UPR

AS12 Section 5.5, which states that ‘Students’

coursework will be returned to together with

feedback no later than four (4) calendar weeks

after the submission deadline.’Receiving

feedback within this timeframe enables students

to develop and improve their work for future

assignments.

“When we get our assignments back, it would be nice to get the feedback earlier so we know what we

need to do for the next assignment. We don't get feedback till after the next assignment is done.”

(HHBIO, NSS 2014)

“Feedback for assessments is often very late. In many instances its well over a month before I hear

back from a tutor”

(Creative Arts Student, Student Barometer 2012)

“It would be better if I get feedback on my work slightly quicker, so I could revise it in plenty of

time.”

(Undergraduate, SU Survey 2014)

We have previously recommended that the window be shortened, and current evidence

shows that the University of Hertfordshire is significantly behind the sector mean for all

aspects of assessment and feedback


Adherence with the four week return is not consistent across the university, therefore

adherence with this regulation should me be made a priority and enforced rigorously.


The Students’ Union has previously recommended and continues to recommend that the

University should consider reducing the time permitted for the return of assessed work to 15

University working days and ensure that this is enforced rigorously.

74 70 61 64 60

2 7 8 7 6

0

20

40

60

80

100

Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9

UH NSS 2014 Assessment and Feedback Questions showing

gaps to sector

Sector

UH

Figure 4: Variance to the sector mean percentage

scores for the Assessment and Feedback questions

for the NSS 2014

15

2c: Quality and consistency of feedback

A review of students’ comments across all surveys, as well as a number of Student Ideas

submitted to last year’s Elected Officer team highlight that students would value constructive

feedback on their work in order to aid in their learning and develop the quality of their work.

“Feedback is often picking holes in work rather than giving specific ways to improve future work.”

(Design, NSS 2014)

“Feedback to be more appropriate and individual - it still isn't and some tutors don't seem to care too

much about my progress.”


“Please can we have more detailed and useful feedback on assignments?”

(Student Idea Submission)

Students highlight in their comments that there can be inconsistencies in marking. They

report varying standards with marking teams and across programmes which makes it more

challenging to complete assignments.

The 2% increase in the NSS and the above sector results for Assessment and Feedback in

the PTES are reassuring and a positive step. Where there have been significant

improvements, this good practice should be explored and shared across the University.

However, feedback over the past two years NSS surveys and the 2012 Student Barometer

indicate that there is still a considerable amount of work to be done to meet students

expectations.


The Students’ Union has previously recommended that the University adopt the ten

principles of good feedback practice as detailed in the NUS Assessment and Feedback

briefing paper – this has been agreed in principle. We are delighted with this and hope that,

as part of the Assessment and Feedback review, some gap analysis be included to

understand where various schools are in terms of their implementation of the ten

principles of good feedback practice. We also recommend that the Union seek

feedback from students on their perceptions on how these ten principles are

impacting them. We would like to specifically highlight that anonymous marking – one of

the 10 principles – be included in this review as we have previously recommended that this

be examined.

16

3. Organisation and

management

The organisation of courses and

communication in general at the

University remains considerably

short of the expectations of

students both at undergraduate and

postgraduate level. Fig 5

demonstrates that this has been an

issue at UH for some time and

whilst scores in this area are

declining year on year, the sector is

steadily improving. The NSS trend

data indicates that the decline in

Organisation and Management

follows the introduction of the Agile

restructuring programme in 2011

(and its implementation in Sept 2012). This could potentially be a factor in this area’s

decline.

The Union recognises the

introduction of a central

timetable will have had an

impact in this area,

however, student

feedback from a variety of

sources indicates that

timetabling has not been

the entirety of the issue. In

fact, underpinning the

sub-themes of

organisation and

management is the

breakdown of

communication at a local

or programme level. A

review of the data

available highlighted that

in addition to timetabling,

the following areas are of

concern to students:

Communication at course level.

Cross school working

Placements

Figure 5: UH and sector NSS mean scores for Organisation and

Management 2007-2014

69 68

71 72

76

70 70

66

71 73

72 74

75 77

78 79

55

60

65

70

75

80

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Organisation and Management NSS Scores 2011-14

UH

Sector

Figure 6: Mean percentage scores by school for the Management and

Organisation questions for the NSS 2014

66 72 71 73

63 60 58

68

59 63

83

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

UH

HB

S

CO

M

CTA

EDU

ENT

HSK

HU

M

LAW

LMS

PA

M

NSS 2014 Organisation and Management % by School

NSS

Sector Mean

79

17

This is demonstrated in the graphs below. The Bar Chart in Figure 6 demonstrates that in 9

out of 10 schools, students’ satisfaction levels are below the sector mean of 79%. It is

reassuring that PAM achieved above the sector in this area and good practice within this

area should be explored and shared with other schools.

3a: The University timetable

The implementation of the centralised timetable in 2013/14, despite substantial planning,

was subject to a considerable number of issues including: frequent unplanned changes,

which created confusion; sessions being timetabled back to back but on different campuses;

and sessions being completely missed off timetables, which unfortunately caused significant

disruption to those impacted. These issues and many more were raised by multiple students

directly with Hertfordshire Students’ Union: there were 37 ideas submitted on this subject

and the timetable was even the subject of a Student Ideas Forum where the chair of the

Timetable Implementation Group answered questions directly from students. Questions

covered a range of topics including:

The timetable interface

Room allocations not being suitable to group sizes

Evening lectures

Spread of the timetable

The lack of a pilot for the project

Cross campus working

Local – paper - timetables being produced to supersede the central timetable.

The confusion caused by the introduction of the central timetable was further compounded

by poor communication at course level (see 3b below).

With scores in Organisation and Management declining in nine out of the 10 schools – with

the NSS declining 4% to 66% and the PTES being 2% off the sector at 75%, it is clear that

the timetable has had an impact in this area. However the trend data in figure 5 highlights

that in recent years, prior to the implementation of the timetable, scores in this area have

been persistently low when compared to the sector.

The University has made significant efforts to improve the implementation of the centralised

timetable for the 2014/15 academic year. The Students’ Union supports this and we

welcome continued involvement with the process. The processes should be monitored as

recommended be below in order to ensure that students are getting the best timetable and

experience as possible.

Recommendation 3i):

We suggest that the implementation and improvements made to the centralised

timetable continue to be monitored in order to ensure that student feedback is actively

sought and acted upon. Ideally, an annual paper submitted to SEEC would be implemented,

and the Students’ Union would welcome the opportunity to work with the University on

seeking student feedback around the topic.

18

3b: Communication at University level

We have seen some positive

changes in the way the

University communicates with

students – for example,

StudyNet continues to be

updated and we understand

that the platform is currently

undergoing a formal review to

ensure fitness for purpose.

We welcome this review and

look forward to positively

contributing to it.

However, we maintain that

students would benefit from

an @herts.ac.uk email

address. We directly asked

students about this in our

2014 survey, as illustrated in

Figure 7.

We strongly believe that the issue needs to be re-addressed with students and explored for

feasibility.


We have previously recommended that the University’s communication methods with

students be reviewed. We stand by this recommendation, and we suggest that University

emails (ie, student @herts.ac.uk emails) are re-introduced (with a more modern student

interface). Additionally, we welcome continued involvement in the review of StudyNet.

3c: Communication at course level

Throughout the open text comments of the NSS, the PTES and the SU Survey 2013/14,

students continually raise that communication at course level is not as clear as they might

have expected. Communications, such as postings on StudyNet and emails sent directly to

students, are effective, but offer limited impact if messages are not posted with sufficient

lead-time. For example, if messages are posted late, students who commute or who live off

campus may miss these messages until they arrive on campus. Similarly, if changes in

locations are communicated late, confusion may arise for students, potentially resulting in

them missing sessions all together.

The organisation of the course, the way it is run, is terrible. The way the changes are communicated

to us are really bad, we're not told.”

(HEB, NSS 2014)

39%

26%

20%

10%

5%

The University should supply students with an @herts.ac.uk

email address

Strongly agree

Agree

Neither agree nordisagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Figure 7: Student responses when asked whether the University should

provide them with an @herts.ac.uk email address (SU Survey 2014)

19

“The organisation of course is not good. The timetable is very last minute. For assignments, you get

the information about the assignments very close to the submission date.”

(HHBIO, NSS 2014)

“…the University on the whole is good but the organisation of the course and communication needs

to be addressed for it to be an outstanding institution”

(Nursing, Midwifery and Social Care Student, Student Barometer 2012)

Conflicting information

It is imperative that staff provide students with accurate and consistent information.

Particularly, visiting lecturers have been cited as having different expectations of students.

Conflicting information can cause confusion amongst students, which will impact directly on

their whole experience at UH. We recommend that teams within modules prioritise

communication to ensure that messaging is consistent; this then needs be replicated at

programme level. Information provided to students should be consistent at all levels.

“I feel the course is less than organised, giving inaccurate information and conflicting information

from different lecturers.”

(Nursing, NSS 2014)

“…there seemed to be miscommunication between tutors leading to much confusion with regards to

expectations of assignments.”

(PTES, 2014)


Ensure that any changes are communicated to students in a timely and consistent

manner, potentially utilising the ability to text students where appropriate.

3d: Cross school working

Where students are working across schools, efforts need to be made to ensure that these

students are receiving a consistent level of service from the University. Whilst Joint Honours

students are not the only group who work across schools, they are best example of where

this can be problematic. Organisation is a considerable issue where students study between

different fields of study, for example, where changes are made these students appear to be

more affected due to the nature of cross school working.

“Better organisation between the engineering and film and TV side of my course.”


20

As a Joint Honours student, I often felt overlooked by both sides of my course where the lecturers only

focused on the students doing the full course unless I brought it to their attention that I am a Joint

Honours student and may not have done all the modules they speak about.

(Joint Honours, NSS 2014)


Establish a 50/50 working group to review processes for cross school working to ensure a

consistent and robust approach to cross school working.

3e: Placements

Students on placements experience varying levels of support. There are inconsistent

practices across the university and even within schools. Students can feel isolated and

detached from the University when they are away and have limited engagement with the

institution. Students can receive information very close to or even on the day of the

placement event which can be disruptive and in many cases distressing. The effects of poor

organisation and communication were reinforced in the SU Placement Student Focus

groups. For students who are regularly on placement throughout their course, this is a

reoccurring process and can disrupt their whole university experience.

“I feel that support was needed on placement with clinical staff but also with academic staff when left

out. Sometimes have felt alone, nobody wanting to help.”

(Radiography, NSS 2014)

“Better organisation of the nursing theory/assignment/placement timings so theory doesn't finish and

assignments due in while we are on placement”


Recommendation 3v):

We recommend that a systematic approach to monitoring the quality of students’

experiences prior to and whilst on placement be implemented and an annual report and

action plan be presented to SEEC.

4. Teaching and learning

As a university with a vast array of courses within a range of disciplines, the approach to

teaching is expected to be varied, however consistency in some aspects would ensure that

students get a better learner experience. The teaching standard at the University is generally

very good and is continually improving through work of the Learning and Teaching Institute

(now Learning and Teaching Innovation Centre).

21

The national results indicate that students are reasonably satisfied across all levels. This is

indicated in Table 1 and Figures 8 and 9, which demonstrate that whilst not quite at the sector

mean, the university has recently made progress and scores have improved in 2013/14.

There are a high number of comments in the national surveys that demonstrate that there is a

high number of exceptional staff at the institution who should be commended on their practice.

Their efforts directly impact on students, providing them with a positive experience.

Statement NSS 2014

Sector in ()

PTES 2014

Sector in ()

Staff are good at explaining things 89% (90%) 86% (87%)

Staff are enthusiastic about what they are teaching 86% (83%) 89% (90%)

The course is intellectually stimulating 81% (88%) 84% (86%)

The course has enhanced my academic ability n/a 85% (86%)

The Learning materials provided on my course are useful n/a 81% (82%)

There is sufficient contact time (face to face and/or

virtual/online) between staff and students to support effective

learning

n/a 65% (67%)

I am happy with the support for my learning 75% (86%) 73% (75%)

4a: Varying teaching styles

The sheer number of positive comments about lecturers and academic staff being engaging,

approachable and dynamic in their teaching demonstrates that students value being involved

in their education and being engaged in their lectures/seminars/tutorials by academic staff that

are enthusiastic about what they are teaching. However, across a variety of surveys, there are

a number of students’ comments highlighting they are consistently taught by a lecturer simply

reading from PowerPoint slides or another teaching aide and their feedback on this is that they

Table 1 – showing results of each question in the survey compared to the sector mean

79 79

82 82 82 82 82 84

82 83 83

84 84 86

87 87

75

80

85

90

UH Teaching and Learning NSS Scores

2011-14

UH

Sector

Figure 8: UH and Sector mean scores for Teaching and

Learning 2007-2014 NSS

84

79

83

86 87

84 85 86 84

86 88

70

75

80

85

90

UH

HB

S

CO

M

CTA

EDU

ENT

HSK

HU

M

LAW

LMS

PA

M

NSS 2014 Teaching and Learning % by School

UH

Sector

Figure 9: Mean percentage scores by school for the

Teaching and Learning questions for the NSS 2014.

87

22

find it uninspiring. It is also clear that students can detect when a lecturer is reusing lectures

from previous years.

“Lecturers are sporadic in their teaching ability, some only read off PowerPoint at an incredible rate

whilst others take the time and explain the topics sufficiently.”

(PAM, NSS 2014)

“Lecturers should use various teaching methods, allowing non-auditory learners to maximise.”

(SU Survey, 2014)

Recommendation 4i):

Hertfordshire Students’ Union to work with the Learning Teaching Innovation Centre

and the Centre for Academic Quality Assurance to look at School level MFQ data to

better understand the students’ academic experience. We would recommend that

representatives from the SU are invited to attend School Academic Committees and

other senior school committees/meetings to embed the relationship at school level, with

the aim of continuous improvement and the development of initiatives at a school level

focused on improving the student experience. We feel by localising the relationship outside of

the current committee meetings (For example, CEG, Academic Board, SEEC and ASAC) the

schools will strengthen the relationship between students, the Students Union and schools.

4b: Visiting lecturers

On courses where there are a number of visiting lecturers there can be a lack of satisfaction

and at times a disparity with other lecturers. Hertfordshire Business School, which is one of

the biggest users of VLs, has not seen improvement in its overall NSS score for Teaching and

Learning at 79% (-8% below the sector). Course material can sometimes be duplicated and

their wider knowledge about the rest of the programme and university can sometimes be too

limited. We believe that the significant number of visiting lecturers in the Hertfordshire

Business School could be a factor in their overall satisfaction scores for Teaching and

Learning. It is concerning for students to be saying that in some instances, VLs can ‘ruin

particular modules’.

There have been several occasions where visiting lecturers were unable to answer questions from the

rest of the class, as they did not know the course content well enough.

(Marketing, NSS 2014)

I think communication between visiting lecturers and permanent lecturers need to be improved, as

sometimes their teaching material can overlap without them realising.

(Hum, NSS 2014)


We suggest that the use of visiting lecturers is reviewed annually in each school in order

to ensure a) they are adhering to teaching standards in place for permanent staff and b)

are relevant to the subject matter and add value in terms of ‘outside world’ experience.

We also ask that information regarding lecturer hours compared to the total lecturer

teaching hours by school (i.e. excluding research time) be published to students and

Hertfordshire Students’ Union.

23

We believe that it is excellent that scores in Teaching and Learning are beginning to show

improvements at all levels. It should be noted that whilst this section focuses on areas for

improvements, there are schools demonstrated in Figure 8 where students rate their

teaching to be excellent. Good practices employed in PAM, as well as a number of

programmes within Health and Social Work and Life and Medical Sciences should be

explored and shared with other schools with lower scores in this area.

5: Academic support

The rapidly improving scores seen in Figure

10 show that there is a clear commitment to

improve scores in this area, with the

University improving faster than the sector.

However it still remains short of the sector.

Both undergraduate and postgraduate

students indicate lower levels of satisfaction

in this area with undergraduates scoring the

university 78%, 3% off the sector mean

(NSS 2014) and postgraduates scoring the

university 65%, 2% off the sector mean

(PTES 2014). The lower scores in this area

directly correlate with the university’s scores

for Teaching and Learning . The Trend data

in Figure 9 indicates that this area is

improving year on year, which is to be

commended. When broken down by school,

the results are considerably more variable. Where there are above sector scores, practices

and systems should be explored and shared with schools with lower scores.

5a: Contact time

Students indicate at both postgraduate and undergraduate level that they would like more

face to face contact time with their academic staff. They indicate, particularly at postgraduate

level, that they that feel regular sessions with staff would prove useful to help students

learning and keep them on track.

“I think there is not sufficient contact time between students and tutors, weekly or bi-monthly

synchronous sessions would be really useful to keep students on track”

(PTES 2014)

“Higher amount of lecture time preferred, as there wasn't much teaching time, or time to

communicate with lecturers “

(Music, NSS 2014)

66 67

82 73 73 72 75 78

72 74 74 75 77 79 80 81

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

UH Support NSS Scores 2011-14

UH

Sector

Figure 10: UH and Sector NSS mean scores for Support

2007-2014

24

Recommendation 5i):

We recommend that contact time with lecturers is reviewed at programme level against

the sector in order to identify any potential gaps or areas of best practice. Where there is

found to be a significant shortfall against the sector mean for the subject area, measures

should be put in place to address this as quickly as possible.

5b: Personal tutors

There is no University requirement for schools to have a Personal Tutor Scheme. This has

resulted in an inconsistent approach to personal tutors across the University. In schools

where these have been utilised, staff and student engagement in the process is varied. A

lack of personalised support can leave students feeling unsupported or – in some cases –

isolated.

“The lack of a visible or present personal tutor is an issue and other courses have an allocated tutor

which they meet with and can speak to…”

(AUTM, NSS 2014)

“Having a personal tutor would be good.”

(SU Survey, 2014)

I would have liked the personal tutor system I experienced in my final year from the start. It's useful to

have one tutor you get to know a little better and feel comfortable speaking to when things aren't

going as planned.

(Student Barometer 2012)

Students who have had a positive experience with their personal tutor really value the

support and guidance and would recommend it to others. An effective relationship with a

personal tutor can make or break a student’s university experience.

“Really supportive personal tutor makes a huge difference. Mine was fantastic!”

(Midwifery, NSS 2014)

“The introduction of personal tutors in third year was great.”

(EDU, NSS 2014)

25

Students depend on their interactions with

both their academic staff and their course

colleagues to develop their own expertise

and practice. Insufficient contact time,

either through lectures or personal

tutorials, may leave students feeling

isolated and lacking in confidence to use

the knowledge and skills they have

developed. Figure 11 demonstrates that

whilst there is room for improvement

generally, this is some very good practice

within some schools. The effective

systems in place within the schools of

Creative Arts, Education and Physics,

Astronomy and Mathematics, where these

schools have scored above the sector,

should be explored and shared with other

schools where development is needed.


We appreciate that to re-introduce personal tutors across the University may not be feasible

for an institution of this size. We therefore recommend that an investigation is carried out

to assess the options available for introducing a modern form of personal tutoring

across the University. One suggestion is that students are given a named contact point

within their schools to be able to contact upon request. This works successfully in Life and

Medical Sciences where there are a group tutor sessions which are supported by one to one

sessions on request and we recommend that this option be explored to see if feasible in

other schools in order to ensure students are receiving a consistent experience regardless of

their school of study.

Figure 11: Mean percentage scores by school for the

Academic Support questions for the NSS 2014

78 77

75

82 83

73

76

78

76

79

83

68

70

72

74

76

78

80

82

84

UH COM EDU HSK LAW PAM

NSS 2014 Academic Support % by School

NSS

Sector Mean

81

26

Section 2 - Non-academic Experience 6. Transport 6a: Uno Bus The Students’ Union recognises the value of a University-owned bus company to our student

population and the positive impact it has on the student experience. We therefore are

committed to working with the University and Uno Bus to ensure its success.

However, Uno’s service provision is one of the most frequently raised issues via the SU’s

feedback channels, and these are regularly discussed at the Uno Bus Stakeholder Group

and other opportunities such as VCSU. It is reported that nearly 40% of Uno’s customer

base are UH students (via the Uno Bus Stakeholder Group Minutes).

Feedback on service

Although the SU has not formally conducted any market research into Uno’s service levels,

we have received a high volume of feedback via a variety of channels, including:

Our Student Ideas Forum

Social media – Facebook and Twitter

Letters and emails to Elected Officers

Our all student survey

These are the themes we have discovered from looking into the evidence a little deeper:

Overall customer service – on buses, at the deport and opening times

Communication from Uno – information about delays, cancellations and last minute

timetable changes. There are also comments relating to responding to customers

who have contacted Uno.

Dangerous driving – overcrowding, speeding and customer perceptions of safety on

board.

Timetable adherence – buses turning up late, skipping stops or not turning up at all.

Driver behaviour whilst on duty – unscheduled stops to run personal errands

Pricing – student pricing can be more expensive that adult prices on selected routes.

The Students’ Union is committed to working in partnership with Uno Bus and the University

to ensure students are represented as we work to resolve these issues. Uno Bus is integral

to the whole University community and by addressing the issues highlighted openly and

transparently, we can together improve this essential service.

Recommendation 6i):

In 2013/14, we received a number of Student Ideas raising an issue with Uno Bus. We

followed this up and presented a series of recommendations in autumn 14 to the Vice

Chancellor Student Union Group (VCSU):

27

• Increased student communications about service improvements – we feel the

Open Letters are helpful, but should also feature updates following through

suggestions that have been made.

• Make a customer service charter (or similar organisational values overview)

publicly available and specifically publicise this to students and staff.

• Uno to be invited to attend an upcoming Student Ideas Forum as part of a panel

discussion featuring representatives from the University, senior management of Uno

and The Uno Board to hear student feedback and for Uno to update students on

service improvements – our aim is to enable students to better understand the fuller

picture around UNO Bus and where the responsibilities lie for various facets of the

bus service within the University community.

• The Students’ Union has invited Uno be interviewed for Universe following on from

the article from Issue 3 of UniVerse (dated 17 November 2014) – this is being

coordinated with UH Marcomms.

• Driver training and recruitment to be reviewed – this has been raised at the

Stakeholder meeting, and committed to by Uno. We recommend that as a starting

point, the job description on the website could be reconsidered in order to outline

from the offset what is expected of Uno Bus drivers.

• We recommend Uno Bus issue drivers with comment cards in the hope that they

will alleviate passenger frustration, diffuse conflict on the buses and help direct

students to the right communications channel in order that they can receive feedback

on their complaints. We would ultimately hope that this could assist the buses in

adhering to timetables as these could relieve potential arguments with passengers

• The Students’ Union can assist with a campaign promoting the Intalink app. This

contains the real-time tracking information for buses, which again may alleviate some

passenger frustrations.

• We have previously recommended a service helpline that mirrors the hours of

service. The current helpline is in operation from 8am – 5pm, whereas the

buses operational hours are approx. 6am – 3.30am. We strongly support increasing

these hours to at least cover the morning and evening rush hour periods.

6b: Parking Changes to the parking provisions on campus are a bye-product of the 2020 campus

developments. Students have seen a reduction in the number of available parking spaces on

campus and report that what provision there is, including the Park and Ride facility at

Angerland is regularly at capacity. Students on the de Havilland Campus raise the lack of

student parking which requires them to rely on the Park and Ride. The open text comments

in the SU Survey 2013/14 indicate that students find the on campus parking provision

expensive, with limited flexibility, some suggest the introduction of free/reduced fee shorter

time limit spaces which would be useful to submit assignments or drop off books to the LRC.

The Students’ Union has received 26 Student Ideas raising the cost and provision of parking

as an issue. The cost of parking is not a recent issue, featuring prominently in the 2012

Student Barometer and apparent in the open text comments of the SU Survey 2013/14

survey.

28

“Introduce a 30 minute or less free parking ticket so that you don’t pay when you are only there to

drop assignments off because it doesn't take that long yet you still have to pay.”

(SU Survey 2014)

“Parking spaces and charges for daily parking is a problem.”

(Pharmacy, Student Barometer 2012)


There appears to be conflicting information about student parking on campus – both in terms

of cost and availability. While many of these changes are temporary due to building works,

we feel additional student communication or clearer signage about the availability and

cost of parking on campus would alleviate many of these issues

7: Social provision/pricing 7a: Cost of living on campus

Students indicate across a range of surveys that they find the cost of provisions on campus

to be expensive. This refers to both services provided by the University and Students’ Union.

This is a long standing issue featuring in the 2012 Student Barometer as well as appearing

in the NSS and SU Survey 2013/14 free text comments. Students indicate that the following

services are perceived to be overpriced in relation to a ‘student budget’:

SU shops on both campuses

Food Hertfordshire food outlets

Club de Havilland

Hertfordshire Sports Village

On campus parking

Forum/EleHouse

LRC Printing costs and fines

Athletic Union

“Student meal prices are expensive when compared to other places. The change in the bonus card

system was absurd. It's now worthless.”

(SU Survey, 2014)

“The prices in the College Lane SU Shop are higher than what a lot us expected. It can be quite

expensive especially for those of us experiencing problems with Student Finance.”

(SU Survey 2014)

Following on from this, the Students’ Union are planning a complete price review in order to price mark a variety of products in our own outlets. This is to ensure that pricing is competitive and ‘student friendly’ in comparable outlets that students may attend for products or services.

29

Recommendation 7i):

Offer services at a variety of price points to suit various student budgetary restrictions.

The Students’ Union is committed to charging fair prices for goods and services, and we

believe the University feels the same way. However, we recommend that pricing is reviewed

in the following outlets in order to ensure that student-friendly pricing is available:

• SU shops on both campuses

• Forum/EleHouse

• Food Hertfordshire food outlets

• Club de Havilland

• Hertfordshire Sports Village

• On campus parking

• LRC printing costs and fines

• Athletic Union

Where price reductions are not possible, we recommend that alternative value products

are offered and promoted effectively.

7b: Social Space on Campus It is clear from the open text comments of the SU Survey 2013/14 that students, whilst

satisfied with the current offering, would like to see more provision of social space on the de

Havilland campus. The introduction of the Mezzanine in the Atrium has helped reduce the

pressures on the de Havilland LRC, however, there is still a demand for additional social

space on the campus.

There are a considerable range of activities, including alcohol-free for students to get

involved with on campus and in the local area including:

Student societies

Volunteering projects

Active Students

Give a Go

Athletic Union sports

Herts Halls League

The Forum Hertfordshire

The EleHouse

Campus Football

Whilst there are a range of cross campus events, historically SU activities tend to be focused

on the College Lane campus and sport activities focused on the de Havilland Campus,

largely as a result of the location of facilities.

If students are unaware of what social opportunities there are perhaps more needs to be

done to promote these services and opportunities to students.

“the de Havilland campus needs more activities for students to participate in, either a second forum

to give the campus more social activities, even a proper bar or an EleHouse, the campus needs a lot

or improving to be made felt more of a university”

(SU Survey, 2014)

30

“More volunteering opportunities / social activities that don't involve alcohol. i.e. trips, walks, etc.”

(SU Survey, 2014)


Investigate the possibility of increased social space and social opportunities on de

Havilland. With the introduction of the new halls on the College Lane Campus and the

increased social space on College Lane (in addition to the new Chapman Lounge, the Oval,

Café RØRE and Hutton Hub, the Forum and the EleHouse are continually being invested in

to ensure they are market-leading), there is an increased sense that the de Havilland

campus does not offer sufficient social space. We recommend that this is considered and

addressed in order to ensure students living and studying on both campuses have

access to a similar calibre of social spaces, both licenced and non-licenced

8. Student employment within the University Post-graduation student employability rates are something that the University should be

proud of and is reflected positively in the Destination of Leavers in Higher Education data

and the NSS Development scores. Students have indicated that they would like to see more

employment opportunities on campus. Anecdotally, we are aware that students are

employed in a range of services, such as: throughout all SU services and in Food

Hertfordshire outlets. However, students raise that they would like information about

availability of these roles to be better advertised. We currently employ between 180 and 200

students across the Union and always seek to increase this where possible. In addition to

this, we operate a student jobs board, listing local part time work that students can apply for.

“Offer a greater variety of jobs to students within the university.”

(SU Survey 2014)

“Have more jobs available for students on campus”

(SU Survey 2014)

Whilst the Union assumes that recruitment practices are carried out in an open and

transparent way, it is unclear how the university advertises its student vacancies. We were

unable to identify clear information about how students can apply for roles within the

university at the time of producing this report. Hertfordshire Students’ Union has a clear

commitment to not offer more than 20 hours of part time work to any one student during term

time in order to prevent students working an amount of hours that may impact their studies

whilst also maximising the number of student employment opportunities.

Recommendation 8i):

The Students’ Union employs 180-200 students per year, on average. At this point in time,

we are unsure of how many students are employed by the University. We recommend that

the University and the Students’ Union both commit to employing students in part-time

and temporary roles wherever possible. We also recommend that both the University and

the Students’ Union are transparent about advertising part-time roles on campus and

share information across services in order to ensure students have access to as much

information as possible on how to secure on-campus part-time roles.

31

Conclusion/Summary

2013-14 saw the University of Hertfordshire and Hertfordshire Students’ Union achieve its

highest scores in the National Student Survey, reflecting the efforts made across the whole

institution to improve the student experience however; the student experience is made up of

more than just good teaching and learning.

A culture of Student Representation does exist at the institution and is improving year on

year; however there are still gaps in provision and some areas where students are currently

not fully represented.

Assessment and Feedback and Organisation and Management are areas where there is

significant room for development. The scores for Academic Support and Teaching and

Learning, whilst still performing lower than the sector are making improvements. The non-

academic life also contributes considerably with transport and the cost of living on campus

heavily influencing the student experience.

The implementation of the centralised timetable, whilst having a clear impact, should not

detract from historical poor performance in organisation and management. Communication

and programme organisation remains a persistent problem as well as cross school working

and placement organisation. Linked to this, assessment clustering and promptness of

feedback impacts of a student’s experience. Other areas for development within Assessment

and Feedback are the quality and consistency of feedback.

The range of social activities on campus is vast, however the promotion of these and

accessibility is not as clear as it should be. Social space on de Havilland remains an issue

however the pressure on the LRC is reduced following the construction of the mezzanine.

Hertfordshire Students’ Union will continue to present these issues and work with colleagues

from across the university to resolve them.

32

Last Year’s Recommendations - An update and reflection

Recommendation from

Hertfordshire Students’

Union

Lead

member

of staff

Response from the University of

Hertfordshire

Update and Reflection for the Student

Experience Report 13-14

1. In future Hertfordshire

Students’ Union needs

access to more data

including, but not limited

to, the Post Graduate

Student Surveys and

Programme Committee

Minutes, to further

develop its research and

support its

findings/recommendatio

ns.

AC This is agreed. HSU has been provided with

access to Programme Committee agendas and

minutes through EDRMS. PRES and PTES, and

other survey data, will be presented at SEEC and

permission will be granted for wider consideration

within HSU.

Upon reflection, we believe that recommendations

1 and 2 should have been merged. In order for

the Students’ Union to be most effective in

utilising the research shared by the University we

would wish to receive the raw data and analysis

from the PTES, PRES, MFQs (excluding

confidential lecturer data) Programme Committee

Meeting minutes in a formalised and agreed way

in order for the University and Students’ Union to

be completely transparent with one another. This

data will better inform our proposals and enable a

forward-thinking, consistent approach for

partnership working with the schools of study. At

present the Students’ Union receives summary

reports from the PTES and PRES surveys

through SEEC papers. In the 2013-14 academic

year, no Programme Committee minutes were

made available to the Students’ Union.

Furthermore, we believe that the provision of

MFQs to students in a paper format ensured that

the feedback from students is more valuable with

a higher response rate. The Students’ Union

would like to see, or be a part of the formation of,

2. Module Feedback

Questionnaires should

be used to improve the

student experience.

AC The reversion to a paper-based MFQ should afford

higher quality data to inform and enhance the

student experience.

33

any subsequent action plans following the above

surveys, in order that we can work with them to

further improve the student experience.

3. The University of

Hertfordshire should

adopt the ten principles

of good feedback

practice as detailed in

the NUS Assessment

and Feedback amnesty

briefing paper

(http://www.nusconnect.

org.uk/asset/news/6010/

Feedback-Amnesty-

Briefing.pdf).

AC This has been disseminated to Associate Deans

(L&T) and Associate Deans (AQA). It will also be

considered at the next meeting of SEEC.

At SEEC (28 January 2014), the NUS

Assessment and Feedback Benchmarking Tool

(including the 10 principles of good feedback)

were agreed upon by its members. This is a real

step forward in improving assessment and

feedback for students. However, following from

these minutes Dr John Alltree was actioned to

conduct a mapping exercise/gap analysis of

existing principles of good practice. With Dr

Alltree’s retirement earlier this year, we feel as

though this may have fallen through the gaps as

this work hasn’t yet been completed. The

Students’ Union believe that undertaking a full

assessment and feedback review across all

schools will be an incredibly valuable piece of

work on behalf of the institution and we would

recommend that this work still goes ahead in line

with the gap analysis actioned to Dr Alltree in

January 2014. Although it is recognised that

currently there is an audit of the 4 week

turnaround of feedback underway, which is a

positive step, we believe the review of

assessment and feedback should be expanded in

line with the Recommendation 2 in the Student

Experience Report 2014.

4. The ability to teach in

English should be

NH There is robust peer review – LTI or Andrew would

have to comment on whether this includes looking

We look forward to seeing the results of the audit

of effectiveness in the HR process in Easter 2015

http://www.nusconnect.org.uk/asset/news/6010/Feedback-Amnesty-Briefing.pdf




34

assessed at

appointment, and

monitored throughout

employment via a robust

peer review system.

at English language ability. A great deal of work

was put into developing further guidance for

academic recruitment last year and a How To

guide is being developed. This should be available

in the early new year and includes guidance on

assessing English language.

NH update e- New guidance on the use of

presentations (to determine the ability to teach in

English) in selection decisions has been drafted

and is being used in recruitment training. HR are

going to undertake an audit of the effectiveness of

presentations in selection decisions by Easter

2015. There is a local induction audit being

undertaken by HR over the coming months – this

will assess how decisions about development

following appointment are made and followed

through

and the Students’ Union would be happy to work

with HR to develop the processes if this is

appropriate, after the results are released. We are

still unsure if the peer reviews include an English

language assessment, therefore some

clarification on this aspect of the recommendation

would be appreciated. We believe that English

language ability should still be included in the

peer reviews therefore once the “How To” guide

on how to assess English language has been

released in the new year; we would hope that this

recommendation can be taken forward in

conjunction with the LTIC (see Recommendation

4i).

5. In certain subjects

where anonymous

marking is not possible

a tutor should be

appointed for support

but should have no

involvement in marking.

AC The University would wish to see how anonymous

marking is received and implemented across the

institution from 2014 onwards before making

commitments to additional marking systems.

The Students’ Union recognises that the

University has approved a commitment to

anonymous marking. Along with the reflection for

point 3, it would be useful to see a review of the

implementation of anonymous marking included

within a full assessment and feedback review. It

would be useful to note where anonymous

marking has been comprehensively adopted and

where there might be difficulties in adopting this

fully. By highlighting where there might be issues

with anonymous marking, we would recommend a

working group be established with at least 50%

35

students to identify where alternative

arrangements are needed and what these might

be in practice.

6. A working party should

be established to review

feedback at the

institution comprising of

50% staff and 50%

students.

AC The University would welcome a fuller proposal

either from HSU or jointly prepared between HSU

and the Director of Learning and Teaching to be

considered at a SEEC meeting.

We hope that this and any subsequent working

groups will aim to include 50% students in line

with Recommendation 2 in the Student

Experience Report 2014.

7. Review the four week

period of feedback with

a view to shortening it.

AC The University is working towards and would wish

to see compliance across all schools and

programmes with the four week turnaround on

coursework before considering a further reduction

in turnaround times.

We believe the review in line with

Recommendation 2 should consider reducing the

permitted time for feedback to 15 university

working days.

8. Establish an ‘internal

OFSTED’ to inspect

academic schools

against a rigorous set of

agreed criterion.

AC The University has made use of ‘panels’ of external

experts in the past to review and support the work

of particular programmes. This will be reviewed in

the context of the current NSS action plans and the

outcomes of NSS 2014.

Upon reflection, the Students’ Union realise this

recommendation used very emotive language and

on reflection we would phrase this differently.

However the principle of this recommendation

was to ensure that for schools that consistently

underperform, there is a support network

providing them with expert guidance to resolve

issues as effectively as possible. The Students’

Union still stands by the principle of this

recommendation. However, we are keen to

further develop relationship with each school as

this has proven highly beneficial. We would

recommend that representatives from the SU are

invited to attend School Academic Committees

and other senior school committees/meetings to

embed the relationship at school level, with the

36

aim of continuous improvement and the

development of initiatives at a school level

focused on improving the student experience. We

feel by localising the relationship outside of the

current committee meetings (For example, CEG,

Academic Board, SEEC and ASAC) the schools

will strengthen the relationship between students,

the Students Union and schools.

9. The University should

be more transparent

when communicating

with students about why

changes happen.

AC/JN Marketing and Communications are working more

closely with the PVC Student Experience and have

identified someone with particular responsibility for

Student Communications.

The Students’ Union has seen, especially from

the NSS comments, that communication with

students continues to be an issue. Having

considered this further, we believe that whilst

there are still improvements that can be made at

a University level, the emphasis needs to be at a

school level. We are pleased that under the

MarComms restructure, the Head of Internal

Communications now includes student

communication as part of their role. However this

is responsible for communications at a university

level. We feel that here remains a gap at

programme level in line with Recommendation 3.

10. A member of staff

should be appointed to

deal with student

communications.

JN Marketing and Communications have identified

someone with particular responsibility for Student

Communications.

11. Information


make noise

management their

number one priority by:

a. Reconsidering

the layout of both

Learning

Resource

DM DF update - The following activities have taken

place to address this issue, particularly focussing

on de Havilland LRC where the situation had been

worse.

Reviewed the designated enclosed silent study suites in each LRC (with 250+ seats at deH). Introduced restricted access to some Silent Study LRCs with zero tolerance and withdrawal of access rights if breached.

Silent study monitors are employed in April-May

With the recent responses to VCSU from David

Ford, the Students’ Union are delighted that so

many positive changes are being made

throughout IH. For the best part of a year, this

information was not provided to the SU, hence

our continued pursuance of this matter through

VCSU. We now look forward to continuing this

positive relationship with David and his team.

37

Centres

b. Reviewing their

communications

and signage

c. Reviewing staff

responsibilities in

dealing with

noise levels

over exam period (with a mixed reaction from students – sometimes very negative)

Increased number of computers in silent study at deH to 50% of seats in response to student feedback

Improved notices and directions for silent study at entrance to LRCs, and published LRC standards clearly displayed and on StudyNet

Atrium Mezzanine at deH as social / informal space with Wi-Fi and printing, which has relieved some of the issues.

The analysis of the NSS 2013 comments shows 117 positive comments about LRC facilities and services and 162 negative; of which 20 mention noise and overcrowding. BY NSS 2014, we had 153 positive comments about LRC facilities and 38 negative, of which only 11 mention noise. So it would appear that this issue is reducing considerably with the actions taken.

In terms of donating a proportion of book fines to

RAG, the SU now understand that this is not

possible due to the reinvestment of such income

into library resources. Having said this, the SU

recommend that a review of the book loans

system commences in order that it reflects a fair

process to all students.

Lastly, we would like to re-emphasise the need for

a student email address to be re-established by

the university. The current cohort of students

have not had use of a University email address

and therefore this is not actively sought by the

current student population. However, there have

been numerous cases through the Student Ideas

Forum and the Question of the Week initiative

where students have expressed that a student

email address would be beneficial to their student

experience. Through the work of the

Communication and Collaboration Project group,

we hope that student email addresses will be

considered and implemented in addition to a

variety of other communication methods that will

allow students to be contacted as they feel best

appropriate to their needs.

12. Information


review where books are

allocated, taking into

account where courses

are delivered.

DM DF update - All the journal collections are online

(30,000 titles) and some 300,000 eBooks, so these

are available anytime, anywhere.

The printed books are organised into subject

collections and their locations are aligned with

School locations. But they are available to and

used by courses.

13. Information


donate a proportion of

fine revenue to the

Union’s charitable fund

raising activities

DM DF update - Fines are an incentive for books to be

returned, so that others can use them – if books

are returned or renewed on time, there would be

no fine income. The income is invested in the

further purchase of books. By redirecting fine

income to another area, this would reduce the

38

supported by RaG. number of books bought each year, which would

appear to be counter-productive to the aim of

increasing book availability.

14. Planned IH

maintenance work

should be undertaken

outside of peak times,

e.g. in the summer

vacation. Signage

should be improved

around maintenance

areas to explain why the

maintenance work being

undertaken and when

this will be completed.

DM DF update - As much as possible is planned

outside of peak and term times, but it is not

possible to schedule all work in what is now only

about a month between resits and Clearing. The

University has a regular agreed ‘at risk’ time on

Friday mornings from 07.00-10.00 when work is

scheduled. Prior notice is given to students and

staff of the services affected and notices are

posted on StudyNet and in LRCs to explain the

work. We are not aware of any comments about

this in the current NSS 2014.


establish a modern, fit

for purpose email

system using an

external provider if

necessary.

DM DF update - The University has already agreed to

review the position by mid 2014-2015. Please also

refer to the information about student email on

StudyNet. A new project is being initiated this year

on Communication and Collaboration, which will

include the review of the student email provision.

No comments have been made in the 2014 NSS

about this area – this will be the last cohort who

used the previous student email system in their

first year.


maintain 24 hour access

to both Learning

Resource Centres.

DM DF update e- This has been in place since 1997 &

2003 respectively and is highly valued by students

(see Appendix 1 - NSS 2013 positive comments).

There are no plans to change this.

39

17. The Weston Auditorium

should be used for

teaching to reduce the

pressure on large

lecture theatres.

DM DF update - Some teaching does take place in the

Auditorium when appropriate and bookings allow.

18. Review the priority of

building works to

prioritise investment in

suitable teaching rooms.

AM Over the summer we carried out a review of the master plan (2020 Estates Vision) and presented four options for consultation / comment. The outcome of this is that the board have approved option two which prioritises the new teaching building as the next major project after the science building. Ian Grimes has written to Michael Gillett asking if he is aware of any specific areas where, from a student perspective, investment is required. Ian will take this forward with Michael.

AM update - The action is green as this has been

completed as part of the 2020 Estates Vision

review carried out in late 2013.

We are pleased that Andrew May agreed to a walk around with two of our Elected Officers and the CEO of the Students’ Union. There has been a recognition that some of the older buildings require significant investment in the medium term, especially in the Wright Building. In addition, the Deputy VC has sponsored a project to investigate the 21st Century classroom.

40

Date post:	21-Jul-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	hertfordshire-students-union
View:	220 times
Download:	3 times

Hertfordshire Students' Union: Student Experience Report 2014

Documents