°Ç¸ç³Ô¹Ï

You said: In 2023/24, the Student Voice Committee requested a common room for students to rest, cook, eat snacks and socialise.  

We did: We are currently in the final stages of completing the common room (Oct 24). Queen’s Estates department renovated the room over the summer, and the School are sourcing furniture.  

You said:

Feedback was sometimes not received in a timely manner for work submitted. 

We did: 

• We are reducing the overall number of assessments throughout our programmes to allow an emphasis on quality over quantity of assessment and feedback. This will enable staff to turn-around feedback faster. 
• We have introduced a monitoring system, so that Year Heads should be notified if feedback is not released on time.

You said: Students and staff felt that combined Chemistry and Chem Eng SVC meetings led to some voices being drowned out. 

We did: For 24/25 we are splitting SVC meetings so that Chemistry and Chemical Engineering students can have their voices heard equally. 

You said:

Final year MEng students appreciated the opportunity to meet with the Year Head and other module staff regularly to deal with any issues as soon as possible. This approach was explicitly highlighted in NSS as good practice by two students. 

We did:

We will continue this approach, as well as bringing it in to Level 3 Chemical Engineering too. 

You said:

Some students felt their voices weren’t heard as the issues important to them were not raised by reps at SVC. 

We did:

We will arrange informal check-ins by staff so that all students’ voices can be heard, e.g. Heads of Teaching might visit students in teaching labs to chat. 

You said: In final year Chemical Engineering projects, a few students found that, when projects relied on data from an external company, the data was not always provided in a timely manner so it became difficult for them to progress in their project. 

We did: This year, staff proposing projects requiring data from an outside source are required to have a back-up approach in-place before the project starts, so that if for some reason the data is not provided the student will not be disadvantaged. 

You said:

The course rep mentioned that in a previous SVC meeting mock examinations were requested by the students.  

We did:

As a result one mock examination was held next time around and two more were scheduled. The students thanked the lecturer for making this extra effort for them.  

You said:

The course rep mentioned there had been confusion concerning the use of calculators during the recent re-sit examinations.

We did:

As a result going forward students will be made fully aware which calculators have been approved for use during examinations.  

You said:

The course rep reported that the Lecture Theatre DKB/01/403 is unbearably warm and is impacting on the student’s learning experience.

We did:

As a result a request has been submitted to the Estates Directorate to adjust the room temperature.

You said:

The course rep reported that some students felt that due to the difference in teaching, they would like to change lecturers.

We did:

As a result, the content has been kept the same for both cohorts, with LT02 starting to use the same set of teaching slides as LT01 cohort.

You said:

The course rep reported that some students would like a slower lecture pace and the in-person lectures are recorded. 

We did:

As a result, the DoE informed the meeting that all lectures should be recorded and released for revision purposes.

You said:

The course rep reported that the projector in the Ashby building was too high and is causing some students to have migraines.  Some technical issues also need addressing.

We did: 

As a result, the DoE agreed that he would contact Estates to resolve the problem.

You said:

That students would like quicker response for feedback on assessments.  

We did:  

• Senior staff now check the provision of feedback to ensure that it is timely. 
• Provision of information via the general module SMP1000 to explain expected timescales for provision of feedback.
• These measures have worked, and we will continue with them in future.  Students have fed back positively in our School surveys on this change.  

You said: Students wanted to ensure that feedback is taken on board.  

We did: 

• Lecturers start their courses by giving a brief statement of how Module and Teaching evaluation responses have been taken into account. If, in some cases, changes have not been made an explanation of why will be given.  
• The School will endeavor to communicate in a much clearer way when changes are made based on feedback received – we will do that through SMP1000 which is more visible than minutes of SVC meetings.
• Staff continue to meet student reps outside of SVC meetings.  

You said: Students would like additional feedback on how to improve assessments 

We did: 

• Implementation of New Assessment Feedback Rubrics: The UG Programme team developed new feedback rubrics during the AY23-24 to address how students can use feedback to make improvements. These include structured, specific feedback on each section of an assessment (lab report, essay, presentation) with marking staff required to rate if each section of the students’ assessment is ‘above expectations’, ‘meets expectations’, or ‘needs improvement’. This rubric was piloted in Semester 2 with a Level 1 module (PSY1009) and a subsequent evaluation received positive feedback.  This has allowed for wider implementation AY24-25 and will be rolled out for all UG modules. 
• Staff Briefing on Updated Feedback Expectations: The School will host a dedicated assessment and feedback workshop before marking begins in Semester 1 (before Week 6) to remind staff of the existing School feedback expectations, focusing specifically on advising students how to make improvements on their assignments and providing high quality assessment feedback. 
• Understanding Feedback Guidance: A guide was designed to introduced to students to the types of academic feedback available. 
• In-person additional assessment information sessions for UG students, including assessment briefing sessions, will be held in Week 4 and 5 of the AY24/25. 

You said:  Students’ issues with group work, including group cohesion and delegating tasks 

We did: The School has collaborated with colleagues in the University of Glasgow to develop dedicated group work guidance which includes new resources (groupwork agreement form and task allocation form) to improve psychology student’s experiences of completing groupwork. An evaluation of these resources will commence in September 2024 with collaborators in UoG and shared more widely in the School. 

You said: The Level 2 assessment schedule felt bunched 

We did: In response to feedback from Level 2 students via SVC meetings and QSS (2nd year) survey results, modifications have been made for the forthcoming academic year to assessments. These include removal of a Level 2 assessment to reduce workload on students and re-scheduling assessment dates to avoid multiple deadlines in quick succession. 

You said: Communicating Student Voice Committee Actions 

We did: Students reported some issues with timetables, notes and feedback concerns. These are dealt with and communicated back to reps in a SVC ‘Action Sheet’ which is distributed after the meeting. Any wider actions are then communicated by the Year Head via the Friday Updates on Canvas to ensure all students are aware and to try and close the feedback loop.  

You said: Enhancing the Student Voice 

We did: Ahead of Semester 1, the School have developed a new student helpdesk (via MS Forms). This is essentially an anonymous form where students can click through probing questions and land at the relevant staff member who they should contact. For student reps, if a question/query has been asked and they are unsure who to signpost onto, they can also click through the student rep helpdesk and arrive at the staff member who they should contact. This will improve communication and efficiencies around the student voice and ensure no student feedback is lost or left behind.