Education Zone (15th May 2015)

Sophia stated that it had not been her intention to undertake an overhaul of the elections database, but that it turned out that it contained a lot of outdated information.  She apologised for the problems with the database used in the Summer elections and suggested that it be reviewed before the Autumn elections period.  She also apologised for the technical problems experienced by some students.  Sophia invited feedback from the Committee in order to compile a report for the staff de-brief on the Summer elections taking place on Thursday 21st May.

It was noted that attendance at the Summer elections results night on Thursday 14th May was similar to attendance at the Autumn election results night and it was pointed out, firstly, that some people did not attend because of exams and, secondly, that Union Films were holding an event on the same night.  

Several committee members commented that the Summer elections were not well advertised on their main teaching sites.   

Sophia stated that the Zone has paid for this advertising from the SUSU MarComms department, but that it was hard for her to monitor whether it was actually being delivered.  Sophia also explained to the committee that SUSU are limited on the number of all student emails they are able to send.  She added that it is difficult to communicate with students effectively at this time of year because of the amount of advertising for the AGM and the Grad Ball.

Shruti and Rhys pointed out that it is also difficult to rely on student volunteers to spread the message at this time of year.

Michael stated that in the past there had been an on-screen advert for Summer elections when you logged in to any University computer and suggested that we investigate this option for the Autumn elections.

Sophia finished by expressing her disappointment that there were fewer contested positions than in previous elections.

Several committee members commented that the time commitment stated on the Faculty Officer Opportunity Profile (10 - 15 hours per week) is inaccurate.  Furthermore, it could put some students off from nominating themselves for the role.  

It was discussed that Opportunity Profiles should instead state the minimum requirement for the role, such as essential meetings to be attended and how many times a year they meet.  For example, Education Zone Committee, Union Council and Faculty Programmes Committee.  

Ed suggested that Opportunity Profiles should focus more on employability and the skills to be gained from the role.

Shruti countered that Opportunity Profiles should instead focus on what reps actually do for their course, such as by giving examples of what previous students have achieved in the role.  It was discussed that this could also include what the student is doing now and what skills they developed in their role.

Shruti suggested that the word 'Supervision' should be removed from the subheading 'Support and Supervision' because it creates the impression that elected officers can be held accountable by staff.

It was suggested that Opportunity Profiles should emphasise that you are part of a team and illustrate how your role fits into that team, such as through a colour-coded infographic or flow chart.  

Rhys commented that, as an Academic Representative, you do not always know who to go to for support and added that other Faculty Officers and Academic Presidents should also support you in your role.  Sophia suggested that Opportunity Profiles should state what support is available and Michael proposed including a list of useful contacts.

Sophia stated that Opportunity Profiles should include more detail about the training offered to Academic Representatives.  Several committee members recommended emphasising that training will enable you to better understand your role and to fulfil it effectively.  Shruti pointed out that people who are bi-elected in the Autumn need to be assured that they have not missed out on training.

Shruti felt that each Academic Representative position is building on the one below it.  In this way, the Course Rep Opportunity Profile should list 4 skills gained, for example, whereas the Academic President Opportunity Profile should list 6.

Rhys pointed out that, although there is a tier system, Faculty Officers are not more important than Academic Presidents, they just do very different work.  Rhys and Sophia stated that the Faculty Officer role is more strategic, whereas the Academic President role is more about actually talking to students and managing Course Reps.

Shruti disagreed and stated that all Academic Representative roles need to be visible and involve talking to students, as long as everyone understands the remit of their role and is able to refer students to the correct people.  

Sophia disagreed and asked why a student would be approaching their Faculty Officer directly rather than approaching their Course Rep.  She stated that this would lead her to question the effectiveness of the team underneath the Faculty Officer.

Sophia decided that Course Reps should be consulted about the Opportunity Profile for their role, rather than discussing it in Education Zone Committee.

Sophia explained that this report is in response to discussions held with Academic Presidents and Faculty Officers on 11th February 2015, as well as with Academic Presidents, Faculty Officers and Alex Neill (Pro Vice Chancellor for Education) on 22nd April 2015.

Sophia explained that the two key issues which emerged from these discussions were University 'buy in' to the Academic Representation System and overcoming barriers to engagement caused by geographical distance, such as students studying at other campuses, on placement, or on years abroad.

Sophia stated that these are strategic issues which cannot be resolved in the short-term.  She does have a list of proposed solutions to these issues, but stated that there was 'nothing new' in them.

Sophia stated that at present the report is just a summary of the discussions held with Academic Representatives and Alex Neill, which she did not feel would be particularly useful to the committee.

Sophia stated that she will hand over her work on these issues to Shruti when she begins her role as Vice President of Education.

Sophia explained that, although Week 6 has passed, she is still working on a guide for University staff on gathering mid-semester feedback from their students.  The University have declined to roll out mid-semester feedback as a University-wide policy, as they feel it would not be relevant to every student, but will still circulate the guide among staff when it is completed.

The purpose of the guide is to share best practice by collating different methods of gathering feedback which staff can then choose from, depending on what they feel would be most suitable for their cohort or department.

Sophia stated that a conference for staff led by the Feedback Champions would also be an effective way to achieve this aim.

Rhys stated that anonymous student feedback about individual lecturers was not always appropriate, as it could become personal very quickly.  Sopia added that while individual anonymity for students giving feedback is a good thing, collective anonymity is not.

Sophia felt that lecturers would be less effective at gathering student feedback if they felt like they had to do it.  Shruti added that, since the University would not be introducing mid-semester feedback as a University-wide policy, Academic Representatives could be used to gather feedback for them.  

Sophia felt that a more casual approach using simple, interactive exercises would be most effective.  Shruti suggested that a staff member could ask for feedback in a lecture, which students could give immediately using their phones, tablets or other devices, so that the staff member and the students could then discuss the responses together.  Rhys stated that in his department students can populate a Google Doc with their names and any problems which they would like to see addressed; the staff member then responds to each problem on the Google Doc, explaining what they can and cannot do to resolve it.  Michael stated that in his department Senior Tutors met with students to gather their feedback and then passed this feedback onto lecturers, meaning that students did not have to give feedback directly to the lecturer concerned.  

Sophia noted the existence of the Evasys module survey and explained that all of the comments received are collated and sent to lecturers.  Giles stated that there is a system in place in his department where students can see individual module ratings, but no other comments or data.  Frazer added that his Course Reps had deployed a survey asking students to rate their module out of 5.  However, at the following SSLC, staff commented that the scores were not helpful on their own and that they wanted supporting qualitative data.

Sophia added that the committee needed to clarify what its aims were, to encourage students to complete end of semester feedback on their lecturers or to provide other students with scores to help them choose which modules to study.

Rhys suggested that this become a larger project which Shruti takes over when she begins her role as Vice President of Education.

Giles explained that in the past the Optoelectronics Research Centre (ORC) has not taught many students.  However, a new Masters programme for the next academic year is expected to bring in 40-50 additional students.  This year, the ORC has had one Course Rep who has worked extremely hard and who Giles felt had basically been acting as an Academic President (AP).  Giles proposed that an AP for the ORC would serve the same length term as the Post-Graduate Taught (PGT) Officer.

Sophia pointed out that we do not have a specific AP for any other Masters programmes and asked if, strategically, this is a precedent that the Zone wants to set.  There are other clusters of Masters programmes who also currently do not fit perfectly into the Academic Representation System, who the Zone would also have to create an AP for if they asked for one.

Giles replied that the strategy of the Education Zone has always been to match the Academic Representation System to the students it represents.

Shruti asked if responsibility would lie with the Zone to actively seek out courses like this which may be under-represented, or with the students to approach the Zone themselves.  It was felt that Faculty Officers cannot be expected to have this depth of knowledge about the Masters courses in their Faculty.

Rhys pointed out that it would not be necessary to create this kind of role once the Post-Graduate Representation System is in place.  Giles replied that the Zone has promised all students that they will be adequately represented and that we should not wait for a Post-Graduate Representation System which does not currently exist.  He added that University staff have asked for this role to be created, as they intend to create an SSLC for the ORC and need someone to co-chair it.

Several members of the committee agreed on the need to be flexible and to have something in place now until the plan for a Post-Graduate Representation System has been agreed upon.  Rhys stated that the implementation of a Post-Graduate Representation System should be a priority for future Vice Presidents for Education.

It was clarified that any ORC students would be eligible for the AP position, even if they were not a Post-Graduate themselves.

For: 8

Against: 0

Abstain: 0

Motion passed.

Giles explained that there are two distinct streams within ECS (Computer Science/IT in Organisations and Electronic/Electrical/Electromechanical Engineering) which cannot always be adequately represented by a single AP.  Giles proposed that, at the beginning of each academic year, the ECS AP must personally decide if they would like the Senior Course Rep (SCR) positions to be filled.  The AP could then delegate some authority down to the SCRs, such as specific project-based work with Directors of Programmes.  Giles pointed out that SCRs would not have responsibility for co-ordinating Course Reps and would not co-chair an SSLC, as an AP does.

Shruti asked why the Zone did not create an AP for each of the two streams.  Giles replied that, firstly, the two streams share an SSLC, and secondly, that this would reduce the role of the AP too much.

Sophia felt that the name Senior Course Rep should not be used for this role because it does not mirror the role of Senior Course Rep which already exists in the Faculty of Medicine.  

Giles explained that, unlike in Medicine, ECS SCRs would not be purely deputies: they would primarily be working on projects, as well as potentially deputising for the ECS AP.

Sophia also felt that the ECS AP would not be able to make an informed decision at the start of the academic yearnabout whether they needed SCRs, as they would not have had enough time in role to know what their workload would be like.  Giles replied that the SCRs must be elected democratically through SUSU elections, which can only happen at certain times in the year, making this the 'least worst' option.

For: 4

Against: 1

Abstain: 3

Motion passed.

There was not time to discuss this agenda item.  Sophia will shortly be sending out a Google Doc to gather students' feedback on the Exellence in Teaching Awards.

There was not time to discuss this agenda item.  Sophia will shortly be sending out a Google Doc to gather students' feedback on the Course Rep Awards.

There was not time to discuss this agenda item.  Sophia invited the committee to discuss Any Other Business with her via email.

N/A - This was the last Education Zone Committee of this academic year.

Sophia and the Education Zone Co-ordinator were not present for this agenda item and it was not minuted, in order for committee members to feel comfortable giving confidential feedback on their experience as SUSU volunteers.