In October 2008 USU released a massive research report on the quality of education at Unitec called MORE BANG FOR YOUR BUCK. This project surveyed students and lecturers about good and bad teaching practices across the whole of Unitec. We found that students faced heaps of problems and some serious action needed to be taken. Here is a summary of what we found out and what we tried to do about it. The full report, and a summary of the recommendations for change that we made to Unitec, can be found at: www.usu.co.nz/student-issues/education-research-report.
ASSESSMENT ISSUES
Students weren’t getting their assignments back on time, if at all. Students weren’t getting enough feedback on their assignments. Assignment questions were either too vague or confusing. Exam dates weren’t being given to students at the beginning of a course. Students didn’t know where they were going wrong in their assessments. There was no regulatory Assessment Policy at Unitec (a policy containing rules about when, for example, lecturers have to return assignments).
OUR ACTION
We found all of these stories from students unacceptable. It was the biggest finding of the research project. We put recommendations to Unitec’s Academic Board to have regulations in place for 2009 around assessments. One of these was that student assignments must be handed back to students within a 3 week period with meaningful feedback attached (this is in line with regulatory policy at other institutions). We put in a total of seven recommendations to Unitec’s Academic Board. See: www.usu.co.nz/student issues/education research report.
UNITEC’S ACTION
Unitec accepted our recommendations ‘in principle’ only. Academic Board said they did not want to put rules and regulations in place saying that students should get their assignments back within 3 weeks, or get meaningful feedback on them. They agreed to let USU work with them on a new Assessment Policy which they want to be a ‘policy of intent’. A ‘policy of intent’ might not contain any rules about getting assignments back to students. We don’t think this is enough and will continue to fight to see rules in place in a ‘regulatory policy’ so that students get some real Bang for their Buck!
SEQUAL EVALUATIONS
Students hated filling in SEQUAL evaluations. They said they never got any feedback and nothing ever changed. We learnt that SEQUAL is poorly designed. We learnt that if not enough students fill in SEQUAL forms Unitec can’t generate a report because it isn’t fair. That’s why there’s often no feedback. We learnt that SEQUALs are frustrating for lecturers too. We learnt that the Maori student experience was not being evaluated properly.
OUR ACTION
We asked for all the lecturers reports on SEQUAL results for their courses to get sent to us, so that we could show students what lecturers said would change for the next year. We said we wanted to work with Unitec on evaluation mechanisms, so we could make sure that feedback gets to students. We asked them to re-design their evaluation mechanisms, with our input. USU has taken over the Student Satisfaction Survey this year, and we will make sure students get proper feedback from it. We asked Unitec to evaluate the Maori student experience properly.
UNTEC’S ACTION
Unitec passed all our recommendations on t his issue. They agreed to re-design SEQUAL with our involvement (it’s happening this year). Unitec agreed to give us the lecturers’ reports on their SEQUALED courses, so that we could communicate any findings and changes to students. They said they would start doing that this year. They promised to measure the Maori student experience in every evaluation survey at Unitec. Students got some real BANG for BUCK here.
REPRESENTATION
We realised that many problems could be avoided if we had good communication with all the Student Reps. at Unitec. USU staff and Executive are able to take on issues at a high level, whilst Programme Reps. are constrained by more local issues. Sometimes we need to check things out with Student Reps. across Unitec to see if a problem is occurring everywhere, or only in one specific programme.
OUR ACTION
We thought the best thing to do would be to engineer a communications plan with lecturers, so we could start a database of Student Reps. at Unitec. We put recommendations to Unitec’s Academic Board asking that all details of Programme and Class Reps. be forward to USU. We asked to be able to enter classrooms to see how things were going. We asked to sit on Programme Committees if the Programme didn’t have a Student Rep.
UNITEC’S ACTION
Unitec agreed to all of our recommendations, and really supported our approach to communicating with Programme and Class Reps.
Thanks to heaps of helpful lecturers, we currently have 112 Programme and Class Reps. on our database.
This is awesome compared to last year when we only had 25!
We are giving training to Students Reps. and producing handbooks for them.
In 2009 Student Reps are going to help students get much more BANG for their BUCK!
So, USU got Bang for Buck for Unitec students in some areas, but not in others. What we really want are some regulations about giving students their assignments back within a specific time period. We want it to be a rule across the whole of Unitec, as we believe that students learn from getting meaningful feedback. This year we are working with Unitec to discuss this issue and develop an Assessment Policy. What do you think should go into this policy? If you want to have your say on this issue please email usueducation@unitec.ac.nz.
Although the Bang for Buck research project was completed in 2008, we are always interested in getting your opinions about the quality of education at Unitec. We also are interested in doing further surveys or having meetings with groups of students who want a specific issue investigated.
If you have any problems on your course, find out who your Class or Programme Rep. is. Don’t know how to find out? Email usueducation@unitec.ac.nz, tell us your programme of study and we’ll put you in touch. If you haven’t got one, we will represent you. The Education Team at USU.