The Real AssessmentWhat Students Said About Their Education

at De Montfort University in 2010

2

De Montfort Students’ Union (DSU) acknowledges that education is central to students’ university experience. As a consequence our Executive Committee, referred to as “we” throughout the document, consulted 102 students asking them what they felt were the key issues in relation to education at De Montfort University (DMU). This document, entitled 101 Voices, is an overview of these opinions and is intended to become a document which students can have confidence in, knowing that De Montfort Students’ Union (DSU) aim to campaign for the delivery of what

students are demanding. A number of objectives have been identified based on the responses received; these will set the overall stance of DSU led by the Deputy President Education. We intend to work in collaboration with the university to encourage positive change. It is acknowledged that further investigation is required however this report provides a starting point.101 Voices is intended to become a series of reports investigating the themes and issues as determined by and affecting the students at DMU.

Executive Summary

DSU would like to thank those students

that participated in this research; your input is vital

to us.

3

Contents

Introduction and Methodology

Feedback

Anonymous Marking

Plagiarism

Space and Resources

Effective Communication

Personal Tutors

Course Costs

Teaching Awards

Conclusion

What Do You Think?

Page 4

Page 5

Page 9

Page 11

Page 12

Page 19

Page 23

Page 24

Page 27

Page 29

Page 31

Page 8

Page 10

Page 11

Page 18

Page 22

Page 24

Page 26

Page 28

Research What DSU Says

4

IntroductionThis report focuses on education and looks to cover 8 key areas determined through consultation with our Officers and staff (at the Union and) in the university. These areas are: • Feedback • Anonymous marking• Plagiarism• Space and resources• More effective communication• Hidden course costs• Increased contact time with Personal Tutors• Teaching awards

MethodologyThere were 102 responses to this survey; this was lower than expected. As this report is based on qualitative data we believe that this provides a sufficient response however the limited feedback has led us to question and reconsider the time of year in which the research is conducted which we intend to address in subsequent years. The survey was conducted online and the data was analysed by the President, Deputy President Education and the Democracy and Representation Manager. Student DemographicsThe majority of respondents (36.6%) were in their 1st year, 34.4% were 2nd years, 24.7% were 3rd years and 4.3% were in their 4th year. 92.5% of those respondents were undergraduate students.The Faculty that gained the highest response was Humanities (31) followed by Technology (21), Business and Law (18), Health and Life Sciences (13) and finally Art and Design (13).For future research the Union aims to consult a minimum of 500 students and to increase participation from all areas (Faculties, year of study and level of study) by at least 10%.

5

Feedback

One of the issues raised in a number of forums, both student and staff led, is that although feedback is available, many students fail to collect this. DSU felt that there could be for a number of reasons for this including the opportunity to view grades online and the timely fashion in which coursework is returned however we wanted to confirm this.

For the purposes of this report we felt it was worth considering what students consider to be effective feedback. Questions we wanted to ask were does feedback actually help students in time to influence their next assignments? Is feedback clear, legible and meaningful? Do tutors offer alternative methods of feedback such as discussions in seminars or general comments directed either at the individual or towards the class? Did students have an opinion on whether previous examples of good and bad work be discussed with students prior to submission of their assignments or whether mentoring be established whereby students in the years above have the opportunity to discuss work with current students?

What did the students sayWhen asked what feedback meant to them, one student commented that “Feedback means that your work is being discussed in detail with either the tutor or in some forms also with students of your choice. I want to know why my grade is the way it is and how can I improve, but I also want to know what the tutor really thinks about it”.

Of the 102 responses to the question about collecting feedback, 89 students (87.3%) said they did collect their feedback with the remaining 13 students (12.7%) responding negatively.

It is not clear whether the question about the usefulness of feedback for subsequent assignments was answered primarily by students that collected their feedback however it would be assumed that this was the case; 78.4% of the total respondents suggested that this was useful for subsequent assignments (a response count of 80). The remaining 22 students (21.6%) did not think this was useful. As previously suggested, this statistic is misleading as it does not clearly identify whether the 22 students included the 13 students that didn’t collect their feedback.

6

The most alarmingly response to not collecting feedback was “At no point was it mentioned we could do this by lecturers. This is the first I’ve heard of it and I’ve just finished my second year.” Other common reasons were that it is never given or that it is supplied in a different format, either posted or emailed so there was no physical need to collect it. It was suggested that in some cases feedback doesn’t indicate the positive and negatives and one comment was “what’s the point if your grade doesn’t change”. One final comment was “lecturers often take too long to give it back to you, [you] no longer need it by the time you get it back”. Fortunately this was not the norm and the results indicate that the majority of students collect their assignment feedback and use it constructively for future submissions. However, based on the limited data, there is still an issue regarding collecting feedback.

How long students waited before work was returned varied dramatically. Some students received their feedback within days whereas others indicated that they waited several months and in some cases, feedback was never given. Due to the open ended answers it was hard to reflect these responses accurately; some students wrote 1 – 2 weeks, others writing 1 – 3 weeks, 1 – 4 weeks, a few weeks, etc. Generally speaking the majority of responses fell in the 4 – 6 weeks combined with 1 month plus category receiving 26 responses (26.5%), this was closely followed by the 1 – 4 weeks category (21, 21.4%), 9 students (9.2%) said that they received their feedback within 1 day – 1 week. One student said that feedback took “longer than the course directory stated”. The university policy is that feedback on work should normally be within 4 weeks after the deadline for submission. The inclusion of the word “normally” takes into account staff illness or other factors impacting on their ability to return work within this timeframe. More importantly students should be told when they are likely to expect the return of their work if the 4-week turnaround cannot be met. As shown above this is not the experience of the majority of students participating in this survey however 49.5% of respondents considered the turn around time to be adequate, 36.6% thought this was too long and the remaining 13.9% believed this to be fairly quick.

The majority of the students (67%) felt that their feedback was clear, legible and meaningful, the remaining 33% disagreed.

When asked whether tutors offer alternative methods of feedback, for

7

example discussions in seminars or general comments directed towards you individually or to the class, the majority of the respondents felt that tutors did not offer any alternatives. Students also mentioned that the feedback sheets are designed in such a way that it only highlights the mistakes thereby leaving no place for any appreciating comments.

When asked what do you think are the advantages of having examples of good or bad coursework discussed in class prior to submitting your assignments, one student commented ‘At least I would know what the wrong coursework looks like. Otherwise you don’t know until you get your essay back. It could bring better results, as the students would get a better idea what a critical evaluation (good one) looks like’. Student also mentioned that it would help to avoid typical mistakes and focus on a more unique approach.

The disadvantages of this were that it can restrict the ideas of some students thereby leaving no room for improvement; students tend to work the same way as shown by the tutor. One student said “you do have limited ideas when somebody already gave you an example and you might just follow it, instead of inventing a totally new approach that might be better or more original”.

The majority of students were in favour of discussing coursework in class; the general view was expressed by one student “I don’t think there is any disadvantage as it provides an overview of the good coursework”. 82% of respondents said they would consent to their assignments being discussed in later years.

There was a further discussion about mentoring from students to help prepare in future assignments; 77% of respondents would like a mentor whilst the remaining 23% did not believe that it would make any difference to them. Further to this we asked whether they would be willing to speak to students in the year(s) below about their assignments; 85% responded positively.

Additional suggestions about making feedback more accessible / useful included face to face feedback rather than writing feedback. One student said “being more precise about what lecturers really want from us and telling us how to achieve that and fulfil their requirements would definitely help”. Some students criticised the handwriting of tutors and wish to be

8

given a typed version of feedback.

What DSU saysDSU believes that feedback is of critical importance in ensuring that students have an opportunity to reflect on their work in adequate time for future assignments. As such students should be encouraged to collect feedback and should understand its relevance.

The university might consider implementing a typed feedback sheet that incorporates both positive and negative aspects of students’ assignments. Forward thinking might enable a one to one discussion with the student being able to directly contribute to and potentially influence the feedback sheet. There could be a section that the student was required to sign indicating that they have understood the content of their feedback and how to best utilise it for subsequent assignments. Although this may prove extremely beneficial for the students, it would be time consuming for academic staff and only suitable in a number of cases.

Alternatives may be to consider offering feedback in a variety of ways including peer support, seminar discussions that could include coursework examples being critiqued as part of the course giving students the chance to mark these assignments, and exploring more explicit marking criteria and an overview of the expectations.

As teaching staff invest in providing feedback, it would be helped if this was matched in the efforts in its distribution from both academics and students. We believe that feedback needs to be incorporated into the modules as an integral part of the learning experience; this needs to be timely with the university’s policy on returning marked work being adhered to across the board and communicated more widely.

9

Anonymous Marking

There has been a lengthy process to establish anonymous marking within De Montfort University which has been met with varying degrees of success.

DSU posed a referendum question in 2008 specifically about anonymous marking; there were 218 responses with 150 students (68.8%) in favour of it and 33 students (15.1%) against, there were 35 (16.1%) abstentions. In addition to this we felt it was worth obtaining students’ views more generally on the issue.

We wanted to know what students felt were the advantages and disadvantages to anonymous marking and to consider whether anonymously marked work was actually a better option. Did they feel that there was a subconscious / conscious level of prejudice or favouritism in marked work? We wanted to know how systems such as Turnitin could be used anonymously. Conversely, we were interested in whether students receive effective feedback if the tutor has no background of the student or their previous assignments.

The general principle behind this objective is that if work was submitted anonymously, both prejudice and favouritism would be removed (should they exist in the first place). This would be applied to written assignments as we realise anonymous marking cannot be applied to all assessments, it is not possible to anonymously mark a performance or presentation and the use of such assessment methods varies in each Faculty.

There has been a real push in recent years by the National Union of Students (NUS) for anonymous marking to be employed at Higher Education institutions. Understandably, the notion of anonymous marking was not for everyone. This may have been down to logistical factors or purely out of belief it was unnecessary.

This year (2009-2010) this item was taken to the University Learning and Teaching Committee (ULTC) for discussion. It was decided that this was a project for the Faculty Learning and Teaching Committees (FLTC)

10

and a number of pilot schemes were conducted across the Faculties to ascertain the logistics of anonymous marking. Feedback from these was helpful although inconclusive. DSU recommends that the FLTCs approve anonymous marking and the Union is happy to consult with any Faculty about the best way of implementing this successfully.

What did the students say36.3% of the respondents had perceived favouritism or prejudice in their assignments, however, the majority (63.7%) did not think this was the case.

Students perceived the main advantage of anonymous marking as being a “no bias” system; “marks are based on what is written not whether a tutor likes a certain student” however certain courses, anonymous marking becomes more complicated and this is reflected in another student’s comment, “I do not believe anonymous marking has any advantage in an Art and Design subject as tutors are so important to the course”.

When asked about the disadvantages of anonymous marking, of the students that answered this question (90) only a minority didn’t perceive there to be any disadvantages in anonymous marking. Others provided some valuable insight, “The tutor can’t give personal feedback to the student or write relevant comments depending on a student’s learning style”, “I am dyslexic student, I am not meant to be marked on my punctuations and spellings yet I already am with most lecturers, if it were anonymous I would get marked down for something I can’t help”. There was also a fear about what would happen if marked work was misplaced although the university should operate a system whereby feedback was recorded and retrievable at a later date if required.

What DSU saysThe general attitude towards the introduction of anonymous marking was positive. We acknowledge that anonymous marking is not a suitable method for all areas within the university. There needs to be further consultation regarding its implementation within certain subjects and modules before suggesting that this needs to be incorporated into these areas. We believe that student support is instrumental in ensuring that the university implement this. In addition to a previous comment about the Students’ Union encouraging FTLCs to approve anonymous marking, we feel that Faculty Reps should also be mandated to support this to ensure

11

that it continues to be addressed at Faculty Committees.

Plagiarism

Plagiarism was not one of the original areas of research however the incidental comments raised by the students indicated that this was of significant importance.

What did students say Students commented on the use of Turnitin, a system used at De Montfort University to enable students to check their own writing for improperly used content, inadvertent plagiarism, or quotation errors. 87.3% of respondents said that they used it but they expressed a number of concerns, one of which was that it does not give feedback and another regarding its reliability as it often fails to work. One student said that “It is unnerving to think that my work is processed by an unknown company. I was not reassured who retains the copyright”.

A recurring theme within this section was related to students’ requiring further clarification on what specifically constituted plagiarism.

What DSU saysDSU notes that the university does not make available data regarding the number of students accused of plagiarism during an academic year and whether these accusations are upheld. There is no data that the Union is aware of which shows whether particular groups of students are over / under- represented in cases of plagiarism.

Anything that assists with the common understanding of plagiarism, such as the introduction of the Academic Practice Officers, is welcomed by the Union however better marketing of services available to students is required. Further research into the role and impact of the Academic Practice Officers is required.

12

Space and

Resources

It is worth considering how adequately learning space across the campus is utilised however our concentration would focus on the Library and learning zones. We wanted to know whether students felt the layout of learning areas were used to their full potential and whether there was adequate computer provision and an appropriate number of resources available in the Library. In addition we asked how effective the designated areas such as the silent area, the quiet area, the syndicate rooms, were.

What did the students sayWhen asked how many students were in the main lectures, there was a massive difference ranging from 12-15 through to 250. This is obviously based on the popularity of courses and the university needing to arrange lectures at appropriate times to allow for all these students to be taught.

One response which the university may want to take in to consideration is “we hardly ever have any lectures. I don’t even know why we pay so much in fees. We pay the same as first years who get more than double the contact hours we do.” Unfortunately without knowing the respondents’ circumstances it is difficult to establish how to address these issues; however it is recommended that some careful consideration be given to situations like these.

In regards to seminars, tutorials, workshops and practical sessions, the student numbers ranged from 5 to 30.

When asked what students thought was a good staff/student ratio, there was a strong trend that showed that 1 lecturer to 10 students was preferred, however a lower ratio would be ideal. It is clear that students want a decent amount of contact time with the lecturer whilst in their sessions. A couple of students suggested that this was dependant of the type of lesson, “...workshops should have a lower ratio because the tutor tends to spend more time with the students so if there are loads they won’t be able to

13get round to seeing everyone in a session.”, “I think that depends on the structure of the lecture/seminar. Though ideally the smaller a class, the more effective the teaching will be.”

When asked whether they felt they had this ratio in their sessions, 44.4% of the respondents said they approximately had this ratio, 34.1% did not have this ratio and 12.9% said they did have that ratio.

We followed this up with discussions about the number of hours students spent in lectures and seminars. The majority of respondents had 6 hours of lectures per week followed by 8 hours and then 4 hours. Clearly, this is dependent on the year of study and how much independent learning is required of the student. Regarding seminars, the majority of respondents were allocated 6 hours, followed by 4 hours and then 3 and 0 hours tied in third.

When asked whether this was what they had expected, 47.7% replied with less than expected, 40.9% replied with meeting their expectations and only 4.5% replying with more than expected.

Moving onto facilities and accessibility we asked for the duration of the year, how often do you use the Library / Eric Wood learning zone. The majority of respondents used the facilities on a daily basis for both personal study purposes and group work.

It is clear that many students rely on these facilities as some students don’t have computers or internet access at home, one student used the facilities “almost every day, I’m without a computer at home. Academically I use it once every couple of weeks as it’s a great study resort”.

It was also clear that students’ consumption of these resources and spaces increased dramatically around deadlines, “Mainly around deadlines or exams when I need to get away from distractions such as Facebook or housemates. In general, not as much as I thought I would have to however.”

When asked about their expectations of the Library/Learning Zones, the respondents highlighted specific themes around silent working areas, ease of access, comfortable environments and an increased amount of computers. One student expected it “To be quiet and easily accessible,

14with helpful staff and intuitive software in place to deal with such tasks as taking out books.”Another comment was more to do with resources: “Video/DVD resources, meeting rooms, places to make notes quietly, printing and scanning facilities, helpful staff, being able to get wi-fi in all Library areas and check out the laptops if necessary. Having access to email or VLE/MLE and journals if needed. A smoke-free entrance also free of loiterers would make me feel better about going to the Library. A friendly, helpful atmosphere from all facilities in the library – even the cafe”.

When asked whether they felt that these expectations were met, the response was generally negative. Comments included:• “I think that the noise level on the computers can rise far too high, when trying to work and people are laughing and shouting it becomes really irritating.”• “Journals and Athens are too difficult to access. The library website is mostly text-based and should be structured more like an accessible menu. It’s hard to find the login page for the Athens account. I think the library should take constructive feedback from students. The cafe is staffed by people who get snotty if you go there to eat your own food, so maybe post a sign or something saying you can’t eat there or get people who are more professional and don’t talk to each other like you’re not there. I think the cafe should be scrapped altogether and made in to an area students can access and eat from the vending machines.”• “Kimberlin is rubbish at this because it always becomes so damn hot in there! It’s muggy, smelly and absolutely disgusting. They need more ventilation or fans or something. There are fans in the syndicate rooms which are better than nothing but they sound like they’re about to die and all they do is push hot air around. How hard would it be to put in some extractor fans? Maybe people would be able to concentrate better and stop messing around so much that way.”

There were also calls for proactive steps to be taken towards people creating noise by staff and security, tightening up the controls on people who may disturbing other students. It was also evident that there were not enough working plugs and sockets to charge laptops in the Library.

On the plus side, student reaction to the Library’s opening times was well received with 43.8% stating the opening times were adequate and 38.2% stating they were generous.

15There was a general positive reaction to the layout of the learning zones, however, there seemed to be a need for clearer communication as to what purpose different areas of the Library were used for. One student said “I like the idea of the building getting quieter as you go up but this doesn’t really happen in practice as it is hard to find really quiet areas for study (especially at term end).”

However, definite issues with the layout were highlighted. “The Kimberlin layout is bad... there are nooks and crannies everywhere means that people use it as a meeting place and just mess around so when you go there with people for your group work, there’s nowhere to sit.”

When asked whether students thought there was sufficient study space in the Library/learning zone, the majority of the responses wanted to see more space to learn in. There are clear issues relating to people using the Library as a social area rather than a study area and this is perhaps something the Students’ Union can work with the university to address. One student suggestion was to “Get rid of the sofas near the conference rooms as they are not used for revision but for relaxing. A library should be used for HARD WORK and STUDY, not talking and making noise with friends.”This clearly indicates that there needs to be better social space provided for students to allow those students who wish to study to do so in peace.

Other suggestions surrounded the issue of physical things that students feel need addressing within the Library. Comments included:• “More computers are needed and the silent areas must be kept silent. It needs to be enforced. The campus tours can also be a real distraction.”• “More plug sockets – and fix the ones that don’t work. It’s annoying when you can’t find a place to work as there are no sockets that work.”• “There is a good amount of study space and now it boasts a good number of scanners, which it didn’t have before. It gets hot and smelly. There’s even a Facebook group to that effect which I discovered last year and am inclined to agree.”

75.3% of respondents felt that they could access the facilities when they needed it. 16.9% detailed what their alternative option would be if there were unable to gain a seat or desk which generally resulted in either going back home, (inconvenient for home students) or going to different buildings such as Hugh Aston or the Clephan Building facilities.

16Students highlighted a definite need for more syndicate rooms as students felt that these offered them the truly silent area where they could do more group work without being disturbed or disturbing others.

Moreover, there was a need for a better booking system for these syndicate rooms, being described as “tedious and time-consuming” clearly indicates that this is an area that requires attention.

There was also a need for greater controls to be taken towards noisy students on the ground floor who seem to annoy many students who are attempting to study.

When asked whether these study areas are monitored effectively there was an overwhelming negative response which clearly indicates that there needs to be more effective action taken in this area. Comments included “I do not believe that quiet zones are effectively monitored; it’s either the zones are understaffed or the library staff are not utilising the powers they have of removing students who ignore the regulations.”, “No. Some people sit at computers when they are not doing any work on it. This is not monitored. If someone isn’t using the computer, they should be made to give it up to someone who needs it.”

There was a very mixed response as to whether students felt there were sufficient computers available in the study areas. 40.4% felt there was sufficient computer provision whereas 41.6% felt there wasn’t.

When asked if students were able to access a computer when they needed it, 50.5% replied they could access the facilities half of the time, showing that access to the resources available to students can be very hit and miss. The research also revealed that, obviously, during busier periods surrounding exams and final submissions, this problem became much worse.

Concerns regarding the appropriate programmes being installed on the computers also featured within the responses.

There was a mixed response regarding sufficient access to software on machines in the Library / Learning Zone. Students studying in the Faculties of Art and Design and Technology particularly felt that the software they use for their assignments are not catered for in the Library and Learning

17Zone facilities. There was also a need for more Mac computers within the facilities. “I tend to use the computers in the Queens or Gateway House building where software is adequate. I have heard other people complaining about the lack of some software in the Library.”

Regarding books within the Library / Learning Zone, there was a definitive positive however there was concern about ensuring that key texts that lecturers recommend in their modules are sometimes not available. The point of how expensive text books can be was raised and again, this is something that the Students’ Union and university could work on together to address.

“For most things but for the core text books that everybody on your course takes out. It would be good if there could be some more. They’re too expensive for me to want to buy them but I need them when it comes to essays....but so does everybody else.”

There were also some other interesting observations that the university may want to consider.“The books are limited to European perspective subjects. There need to be more books about Marcel Marceau and **mime** which are useful for Art and Design as well as Performing Arts students. I’m an Animation student and found no resources whatsoever.”

When asked whether there were sufficient key texts in the Library, the majority of the respondents said yes but there was some confusion regarding records and a suggestion to get a partnership going with the Records Office.

61.1% said that there were many books on their reading lists but 31.1% felt that the books they needed weren’t there. 57% said these books were readily available but the remainder who could not find or obtain these books mentioned that they either have to wait 2 or more weeks or find the books through google books or a similar service.

The majority of respondents claimed that the books on their list accurately prepared them for their course, however, concern about the amount of books required was raised, “They tend to be filled with too many books and not focussed enough to be of any real help. They need to be narrowed down.”

18There was also a suggestion to expand the student understanding of subjects through field trips. One student stated that “books aren’t everything and neither is the internet. I miss the old school trips....and other forms of preparation i.e audio or visual would be nice.”

Additional comments regarding space and the facilities were:• “Courses should have an option of acquiring a PDF library of key texts available through MLE [Managed Learning Environment] to students within their Faculty. This would reduce library usage at busy times. It would also make life infinitely more convenient for students like myself. I know the majority of recommended reading are available in PDF form and it’s taken me the better part of two years to locate and buy/download them. A collection would serve the Art and Design Faculty very well.”• “I think we should have more contact time with tutors for the amount that we have to pay tuition-fee-wise and there should be more computers on the ground floor of the library for quick print-offs.”• “Power points in the Library are the only major issue that I have. I had to go home to use my laptop in busier periods even though there are free places, the power is not connected and hence my laptop won’t work.”

What DSU saysThe Union is committed to working in conjunction with the Library to consider how to respond best to areas of concern.

It is recommended that the university consider standardising the software available on all computers to allow students to access the appropriate facilities to complete their assignments in a way and time that best suits them.

The university should consider the promotion of additional social areas around campus to provide alternative spaces for some of the social activity which currently seems to take place in the Library and which some students find disruptive. DSU would be happy to discuss how it can contribute to the provision of such spaces in its own space and elsewhere on campus.

DSU should consider how we promote our second-hand book shop and request assistance from both the Library and Faculties to ensure that more students are aware of its existence.

19

Effective Communication

This section concentrates on how students are communicated with and considers whether technologies, such as text messaging and Facebook, should be used to enhance this.

We wanted to know whether students wanted the university to use students’ personal numbers to inform them of cancelled lectures or seminars. Students often complain that they don’t receive information but should they be encouraged to check their P number accounts rather than the use of Facebook or BlackBoard. Does the increased number of technological applications available to students mean that the university should make use of these or expect that students use what is made available to them by the university?

What did the students sayWe were presented with some interesting attitudes and opinions towards the ways in which De Montfort University communicate with their students.

When asked how effective do you think the university is at communicating general information with students, the general response was deemed satisfactory but there were concerns raised about emergency information being better communicated and better course specific contact.

One response stated that their view of university communication was “generally adequate, using the Google mail system however [this] can lead to issues such as cancelled lectures not being communicated well. I once sat in a tutorial for twenty minutes waiting for a tutor who was never going to arrive”.

Clearly, there is a demand for a quicker service to be established allowing faster and more immediate communication of such issues.

We asked students to comment on the increasing number of technological applications (SMS, Twitter, Facebook, etc.) available to them and

20whether they felt that the university should make use of these or should students be expected to use the resources made available to them by the university. There was a mixed response to this question with people being understandably cautious of the “academic world” clashing and interfering with their “personal world”. One response said “I disagree with the concept of the university utilising social networking websites for their marketing/promotion schemes. The university should continue using traditional methods and not meddle with applications which students use on social and recreational terms.”

However, in complete contrast, another student said, “Of course, the university should adapt to new technological applications rather than use their own outdated ones”. Another response backed this up by saying “times are changing so I think the university should too”.

There seems to be an emerging need for students to have more on demand communication but to ensure that they can opt in or out of whatever they are using to avoid the personal / academic clash. The same is also true of the university, giving them the freedom to choose the correct application for the right course, and indeed student.

“New applications should be used in addition (by the students) to what the university already use. Depending on the course, it would depend on how the university use these. Because I am on Media Technology, these applications go hand in hand with what we are learning, but other courses are different. I don’t think the university should HAVE to feel like they should use these.”

This was followed with a question about the university contacting students on their mobile phones to inform them of important information such as cancelled lectures. Despite a very small minority, the responses in the survey were overwhelmingly positive to the idea of text updates to students’ phones. Those who were not so positive were concerned about the service being used as a marketing service as opposed to an emergency communication tool. The information being communicated needs to be of an essential and urgent nature and again, an ‘opt in’/ ‘opt out’ choice would be required.

One comment was “living close to campus it isn’t a problem if lectures are cancelled, but it could be helpful for students who have to commute” which

21was supported by a commuter, “That would be excellent! Too many times I travel in from Loughborough on the bus and train to find lectures are cancelled, so back home I go. This takes 90 minutes each way”.

Additional we asked about the use of Facebook to communicate with students. There was much more of a negative response to the idea of being contacted via Facebook. Replies expressed concern about professionalism and a real concern that there would be an invasion of people’s personal sphere. Points about not everyone being on Facebook and the possibility of the university flooding Facebook with messages was also of concern. The one point that caused the most amount of concern however, was the idea that tutors would be able to see students’ profiles and consequently make judgements on those students.

• “If people are too lazy/not interested in reading emails from the Uni on myDMU, they will also ignore them on Facebook.”

• “I would rather keep Facebook and official university separate”

• “Not a great idea – it would just encourage you to waste time on other areas of the site. It’s very easy to get distracted by your friends activities!”

We wanted to find out how effective emails sent to students’ university email account were. Most people regularly check their university email accounts with the majority of responses saying they check their account once every day. The majority of respondents used their account to receive email but not send any, however, they did point out that they used their accounts closer to deadlines. One student said that they used this “...more now I’m in my third year. Hardly ever in my 1st and 2nd year. I only really started when I came in to a situation when I needed to use it this year”

We asked whether students forwarded emails sent to their university account to another personal account such as Yahoo, Hotmail, Google, etc. and if so, why. The majority of respondents did not link this to their personal email accounts. Some students seemed to be under the impression that they would be getting a single sign on system however students don’t seem to be receiving this service. There was a clear need for students to be able to access more information without needing to go through several different sign ons: “I attempted to do this but it didn’t work. I check my Hotmail

22account more often hence if they were forwarded I would receive them quicker”, “I have linked it with my main account so when I receive email to my university account, it instantly goes to my main account. Most students are unaware they can do this so they infrequently check their university emails.”

Additional comments in relation to more effective communication were: • “I think the myDMU email account is great. The layout of Blackboard is ok, functional but boring. And it would be great if lecturers could actually put up their notes.”• “Emailed updates to my personal email account whenever my course’s Blackboard is updated would be helpful too.”

One positive perspective which generally encapsulated the view of the respondents was “as long as I’m kept in the loop one way or another, I’m happy. If I’m not told something until it’s too late, I question how important it really was”.

What DSU saysWith such mixed opinions it was felt that additional research in this area was required. There needs to be further clarity about whether the demographics of the students influenced the answers they provide, for example are the students that don’t have an issue with the university contacting them using social networking sites of a particular age or more likely to be from the Faculty of Technology.

23

Personal Tutors

Students have to manage the transition between college and university and the Personal Tutor can assist with this. They provide reassurance and can be that motivational pressure that students require.

What did the students sayWe asked students whether they knew who their Personal Tutor was. 81.6% of the students asked responded positively. The remaining 18.4% said that they did not know who their Personal Tutor was. Although this statistic is relatively high, considering this survey was conducted across all years, it was felt that this was exceptionally good.

When asked how often students had met with their Personal Tutor during the year, most of the responses were positive. There was a huge variance between the frequency of meetings with some students having met their Personal Tutor only once in the academic year whereas others had met up to six times throughout the year. One comment, outlining some degree of confusion was “My Personal Year Tutor went on sabbatical for my 2nd year and I don’t think he was replaced. He then left totally and I still don’t know who mine is in 3rd year.”

When asked whether Personal Tutor’s met the students’ expectations, this response was more divided. 52.9% of the respondents felt that their Personal Tutor met their expectations however 47.1% stating that this was not the case. One student said “when feedback is provided I would prefer a tutorial with my Personal Tutor if it involved them. Constructive criticism has to be fair and it isn’t always. If I don’t understand the tutor’s decision to find limitation in an aspect of my work, it would be best delivered in person in private tutorial so we can discuss why. I shouldn’t be left with questions”.

31.8% of the respondents said that they would like to meet with their Personal Tutor termly during their first year and meet them at least once during subsequent years or more frequently in the exam or coursework

24times however 69.2% believed that they should meet their Personal Tutors more frequently to ensure that they remained on track. One student said, “Whilst at university, I met weekly with my Personal Tutor and found this a great way to encourage me to work and give me an idea of what direction I’m heading in”.

What DSU saysThe Personal Tutor system would benefit from more clarity about the purpose of the system and the benefits to the students. We believe that students of all years and Personal Tutors should be encouraged to meet at least once a year.

Course Costs

Many students struggle with student loan applications as information can be quite ambigious. There needs to be more explicit information about what students need to consider when submitting this.

This may require conversations with numerous departments, Finance and individual subject areas, to make the costs of the course more transparent and students should be able to see the value of their education.

What did the students sayStudent come to university with some idea about the costs that they’ll incur, particularly tuition fees and in some cases, although not all, accommodation costs, however there are a surprisingly high number of students are fazed by hidden costs and a number of students who are not given accurate or timely information regarding the overall cost of their course.

54 students (61.4%) said that the cost of the course was not clearly advertised in advance. Statements seemed to provide the widely believed

25view that art courses tended to cost more than others due to essential additional resources. One student said “as I have done a fashion course previously I was already expecting the additional costs but I think it would be helpful for other people to know what is expected. Fabric and material can be expensive and you get what you pay for so going cheap isn’t always an option”.

One recurring answer (receiving 29 comments) was books; this had a varying response with some claiming that they “didn’t realise how expensive they would be” and arguing that although students are convinced to buy these books, the amount of time they require them for is minimal, making them an unreasonable cost, “the cost of text books really took me by surprise. That is nothing to do with the university, of course”; and fewer students suggesting that the cost of their books was reasonable, well advertised or suitable alternatives were in place.

There was both praise and criticism for the Library, “before you start the course, you don’t have a clear idea on the books needed, but with a good library at DMU this isn’t a problem” juxtaposed with “it would be more reasonable if the Library had more than one of the text available for those not wanting to buy them”.

The suggestion of second-hand bookshops was mentioned. It seems that there is a need for earlier and better communication about books that students are required to buy.

Other hidden costs that students identified were:• Printing and copying costs:Comments included this being expensive and that the standard of quality is not as good as expected. One student said that for their £3000 tuition fees they weren’t getting much back in return and suggested that printing should be provided free of charge.• Fabric and materials• Travel• Car parking• Trips• Accommodation• Placement fees One student commented that their fees whilst on placement were £650 which covered the cost of 2 tutor visits and the tutor marking their

26assignment.

Overall the comments about hidden costs were mixed, positive responses which offer something in the way of good practice included: “As an Art and Design student we are given £40 worth of vouchers in the art shop which is perfect for a whole year” • “Cost doesn’t come up for books, but tutors offer alternative ways of getting them”• “I welcome more workshops on our course where we pay a little more to get someone special in”

Although this section specifically asked about hidden course costs, responses were generally associated with value for money. One student compared the amount of tuition received by their course and a Nursing course, “the value for money of each course is not highlighted. Why should I pay the same as a nursing student for 9 hours a week? That is just ridiculous!” Another response suggested that “... course[s] puts a price on how much your prepared to pay to get a good grade, which it shouldn’t. If you have the best materials and best things then you get the best grade. It should be about your work not how much money you’ve spent on it.”

What DSU saysDSU agrees with one suggestion, “[the university] should be more honest about costs of books, printing, trips, etc. rather than sugar coating [these] costs”. The university should consider being more transparent and effective in communicating where and how students’ money is spent and what contributions the university receives from HEFCE. DSU would be happy to consult with them on this; we are currently in the process of communicating how revenue generated within the Union is being spent on student services.

DSU should take more advantage of our second-hand book service and promote this more widely, particularly just before the summer vacation. We should liaise with university departments regarding their reading lists. This is particularly important for Freshers when, in addition to receiving their reading lists for the university, the Union should send out a link to our online catalogue enabling students to purchase specific books that they could collect on arrival at the university.

In addition the Students’ Union will consider the support offered to students on placement.

27

Teaching Awards

There is a recognition scheme for excellence in teaching within the university (Vice Chancellor’s Distinguished Teaching Awards) and both the Students’ Union and the university should do more to make students aware of, and potentially contribute to, these awards.

What did the students sayWe wanted to establish how well known these Awards were within the student population and whether students that did know actively engaged with the process.

52 students (59.1%) were not aware of this scheme and of the total number of students that answered the following question about nominations (60), 43 of them (71.7%) had not nominated anyone. The main reasons for this was that students either didn’t know about it (19) or weren’t aware of the process (8). Other comments included not having enough knowledge of the tutor to nominate them or not considering their tutors to be deserving of the nomination and that such recognition should not be given to someone essentially doing their job. One student said “without them I would have never hoped to finish the course never mind have the confidence to go on to further years”.

There were a variety of comments relating to what would make students nominate a member of staff for the awards. These included delivery styles, teaching methods and qualities of the individual. There was also the need for more knowledge and advertising regarding the scheme.

Overall students felt that the Distinguished Teaching Awards was a good idea, with 48 students (81.4%) responding positively to this question. It was felt that this scheme provided an incentive for improved teaching. It “gives students a voice to express their gratitude” and acknowledges their need for “perfection”. It was suggested that students may use this to identify particular good modules in terms of delivery and be more inclined to undertake these. The scheme was seen to recognise the contributions

28made by staff and helps the university acknowledge who “the keepers” are should they face financial constraints.

Students that felt this scheme wasn’t a good idea cited a number of reasons including particular choice and variance: “one student’s preference for a particular lecturer is very different to the next persons”, another student commented that “some deserving individuals may not be recommended because they are not likeable” and a third suggested that the scheme “provides a pat on the back to popular lecturers only, not necessarily the best”.

This could be “easily influenced” especially considering that earlier responses indicate that not all students engage with nomination process.

One student said “tutors should not need encouragement of this kind to be the best tutor they can be” and another suggested that “if they are to award distinguished teachers surely it is fair that they should also award distinguished students”. This was reinforced by another comment that “there should be an award for [...] students who work hard and get good marks but don’t qualify for bursaries or scholarships”.

What DSU saysIt was suggested that the results of the Teaching Awards should be better advertised but within the Union we feel that the university should be more visible in its promotion of the Vice Chancellor Distinguished Teaching Awards. The Union should encourage the promotion of the scheme within Student Rep system in an attempt to stop students “feeling obliged or [having] teachers pressure you”.

29

Although there are some concrete actions that the Union can undertake as a result of this research, it has also highlighted a number of areas that the Union need to investigate further.

Feedback • DSU will work with the university to consider ways to encourage students to obtain their feedback by undertaking detailed research in to how best to distribute feedback and the timescales in which it should be delivered.

Anonymous marking • DSU will continue to pursue anonymous marking through the Faculty Teaching and Learning Committees and will support Faculty Reps to do so.

Plagiarism• DSU will approach the university for information regarding plagiarism and incorporate this into a campaign.

Space and resources• DSU intends to work in conjunction with the Library to consider how to respond best to areas of concern. It is recommended that regular meetings be established as a forum in which to raise these issues.

• DSU will promote the social area within the Students’ Union and as the result of additional research consider ways of making this area more attractive to students.

Increased contact time with Personal Tutors• DSU will suggest that further information regarding the university’s commitment to the role of the Personal Tutor system is made available. This should clearly outline the benefits and expectations required by both staff and students.

Conclusion

30• Through the appropriate Committees (Faculty Learning and Teaching Committees / the University Learning and Teaching Committee) DSU will campaign to ensure provision for students of all years and Personal Tutors to meet at least once a year.

Hidden course costs• DSU will campaign to ensure that the university provides clear and transparent information regarding costs and how students’ money is re-invested.

• In order to assist with the financial pressures students experience DSU will be more pro-active in promoting our second-hand book shop and will seek assistance from both the Library and Faculties to ensure that more students are aware of its existence.

• DSU will work with Placement Officers across the university to consider the support offered to students on placement.

Teaching Awards• DSU believes that both the university and the Union should better publicise the Teaching Awards and the results of the Teaching Awards. DSU will use the Student Rep system as a way of providing students with additional information about nominations.

Areas for further investigation

Feedback• Once we have evaluated changes in assignment feedback we can consider introducing feedback for exam scripts.

Anonymous marking• DSU will undertake further research into the role and impact of the Academic Practice Officers and help promote them through the Welfare and Education Centre.

More effective communication• DSU is currently unclear about the actions that can be resolved from students’ comments within this area. As such we are committed to undertaking additional research.

31

I think DSU have missed something! I think DSU

are wrong about that!

Maybe they could try my

idea!

101 Voices never stops. Your continual input is not just �valuable to the Students’ Union but also to the UniversityGot something to say about 101 Voices? �

Contact the President or the Deputy President Education �

Make sure you’re opinion is heard �

Get your voice heard! �

They haven’t looked at my point of view!

A DSU Publication

ResearchersCalvin Dass

Azhar MaqsoodAndy Schooledge

Colina Wright

EditorColina Wright

DesignAndy Schooledge