Student Engagement

Engaging students as partners is central to our quality assurance commitments. As such we have taken deliberate steps to engage students as active partners in assuring and enhancing the quality of the student learning experience. Engagement in the IQR has happened individually and collectively, influencing all aspects of our review and ongoing enhancement at all levels of study. Enhancements identified through student engagement are implemented, where appropriate.

Following the 2023 Institutional Teaching and Learning Review, a structured quality enhancement cycle was introduced, which included student participation as a key component. Students acted as informed contributors during departmental review meetings, offering insights into learning, teaching, and support services.

The initiative, led by EPQ, engaged 47 students across 28 departmental reviews, 20 of which included direct student input. Representation spanned undergraduate, taught postgraduate, and research postgraduate levels.

Students were recruited via Student-Staff Liaison Committees (SSLCs) and targeted outreach, with departments assisting where engagement was low. Pre-meeting documentation and briefings helped ensure students were informed and confident.

Embedding students in quality processes enhances transparency, inclusivity, and shared ownership, supporting institutional KPIs and sector benchmarks (e.g. TEF, NSS).

Involving students as contributors strengths educational quality, trust, and community, and demonstrates good practice in internal and external review contexts.

Preparation and communication

• Students appreciated timely emails and access to documents (agendas, survey results, SSLC reports).
• Some found the volume of documents overwhelming; suggestions included simplified summaries or prioritised reading guidance.
• Clearer information on meeting times, expectations, and locations was recommended.

Contribution and engagement

• Students felt heard and respected; many noted staff engaged directly with their comments.
• Participation provided a platform to share both personal and peer-based perspectives.

Meeting structure and environment

• Meetings were generally well-structured, though some requested tighter agenda adherence.
• Unclear attendee roles in larger meetings were noted; suggestions included use of nameplates and formal introductions.
• Refreshments were positively received for promoting a welcoming atmosphere.

Discussion topics and perceived impact

• Students valued the broad range of topics and the opportunity to understand departmental perspectives.
• Some cited specific examples where their input had already influenced departmental decisions.
• The process increased their understanding of decision-making and institutional change.

The next phase will:

• Embed student partnership within an annual quality review framework.
• Develop role descriptions and a streamlined remuneration process.
• Standardise guidance and timelines across departments.
• Pilot recognition schemes and evaluate outcomes.