Key Outcomes from the Thematic Audit of Student Involvement in University Governance and Decisionmak

1
Key Outcomes from the Thematic Audit of Student
Involvement in University Governance and
Decision-making

• The Aims of the Audit
• The aims of the audit were to
• Assess the effectiveness of our systems for
  involving students in relevant University and
  Faculty committees, and in School and programme
  decision-making activities
• Identify both areas of good practice and areas
  for further development.
• The Audit Methodology
• Evidence was gathered via
• a review of University-level committees on which
  students are represented (usually by NSA
  sabbaticals)
• a questionnaire directed at programme teams
  (mostly around the involvement of programme reps
  and the student body on that programme)
• a focus group with NSA sabbaticals and programme
  reps.

Student Representation at Napier All Napier
students are members of NSA which plays an
important role in raising awareness of, and
fostering debate about, a wide range of issues
among the student body, including those relating
to quality assurance and enhancement. Student
representation provides a route through which
students can make known their views on matters
relating to academic quality and student life.
University committees which include student
representation

• Key conclusions from the Audit
• Napier has a strong culture of student
  representation in University committees and there
  are a range of mechanisms for students to
  participate in governance decision-making.
• NSA is recognised nationally as promulgating good
  practice in student representation.
• There is substantial evidence of student
  involvement in those standing committees of
  University which are relevant to them. However,
  the timings of meetings can present barriers to
  attendance (for example by scheduling meetings
  during exam weeks).
• Student representation works least well at
  Faculty level. Participation in Faculty
  Committees requires considerable commitment on
  the part of the Faculty Rep and the relevance of
  the agenda is not always obvious. Although
  Faculty Reps may receive travel expenses, they
  receive no other financial support for attending
  a minimum of six, 2-3 hour meetings a year.
• Despite the training available, it is evident
  that new student reps can feel overwhelmed by
  committee processes and be unaware of the
  specific remits of the committees they are asked
  to attend.
• A highly successful aspect of student
  participation is the ease and speed with which
  issues can be raised and addressed informally
  outside the committee cycle. This informal
  aspect, and the culture of mutual respect that it
  reflects, should continue to be promoted.
  However, issues raised informally, and any
  subsequent action taken, are not recorded at any
  point. Formal records, therefore, do not reflect
  the breadth of issues raised.
• Facilitating student representation is more
  problematic for students on distance learning and
  flexible modes of study as there are often no
  SSLCs to attend. The Audit identified a number
  of examples of excellent practice in facilitating
  their engagement, but it is clear that for the
  University as a whole, such students have much
  more limited opportunities to influence
  governance and decision-making. Sparqs is
  currently undertaking a project aimed at
  identifying good practice in this area and a
  report will be published in 2007.
• Student Reps perceive the SSLC as the committee
  on which they can have most influence and were
  clear as to their purpose. However, while all
  programmes held Boards of Studies, their purpose
  appeared to be less clear and they achieved lower
  levels of student participation.
• Programme Teams were able to cite a range of
  channels by which decisions and actions taken
  were fed back to students. However it was
  unclear how effective this dissemination actually
  was.
• Programme Teams expressed broad support for the
  concepts of facilitating student representation
  being part of a Programme Leaders role and of
  student involvement in ongoing programme and
  module development. However, there was no
  evidence of systematic student input into the
  latter.
• Programme Teams generally agreed on the benefits
  of student participation in decision-making for
  programmes welcomed the opportunity to use
  student feedback for programme and module
  enhancement. However, they tended to be more
  aware of programme/module-related benefits than
  student development-related benefits. As an
  example, there appeared to be no awareness of the
  credit-rated module to support student
  representation run by Lifelong Learning.

• Key Recommendations
• The University
• consider an attendance fee for Faculty Reps in
  order to facilitate their attendance.
• 2. All Committees
• schedule meetings on dates outside the
  examination periods and dissertation submission
  period
• consider clustering agenda items, perhaps with
  student-specific issues clustered towards the
  beginning of meetings.
• 3. Committee Chairs and/or Secretaries
• meet with new Student Reps before their first
  meeting to acquaint them with the committee
  remit, membership etc.
• 4. Quality Committee
• charge the Associate Deans (Quality Customer
  Focus) with developing a standard process of
  student involvement in both School and Programme
  Review and in programme and module development.
• invite NSA to lead a number of staff development
  sessions on student representation as part of the
  EdDev professional development programme.
• 5. SSLCs
• record informally raised and resolved issues in
  minutes.
• 6. Programme Teams
• consider how to improve Programme Rep attendance
  and engagement at Boards of Studies.
• investigate alternative methods of communication
  e.g. programme pages on WebCT Vista, School web
  pages.
• 7. Programme Teams for Distance Learning and
  Flexible
• ensure you have suitable alternative methods of
  gathering student views.
• 8. Lecturers

Audit team Chris Ashton (Chair), Emily Alder
(Secretary), Sarah Snell (NSA), Veronique
Johnston, Katrina Castle, Margaret Mill, Jill
Leggat, Sally Smith, Monika Foster, Andy Gibbs