vision for the future of education: pgr

POSTGRADUATERESEARCH

2

Vision for the Future of Education | PGR

CONTENTS

Introduction4

A Note on Data6

The Original Vision for Education7

Executive Summary8

1. A Fair Deal for Postgraduate Teachers10

2. Training and Support for Postgraduate Teachers11

3. Welcoming New Students - an Informative and Enjoyable Induction for All12

4. PGR Space - Teaching Space, Library Space and Intellectual Environment13

5. Supervision and Mentoring14

6. Course Costs, Resource Management and Funding Support15

7. Professional and Career Development16

8. Social and Intellectual Climate17

9. Doctoral Training Centres18

10. Part-Time PGRs19

Targets and Impact Measures20

3


The Sunday Times Good University Guide 2014 this autumn placed Exeter 8th in the UK. Last academic year (2012-2013) we were Sunday Times University of the Year. But we are not at all complacent. We want you to have an outstanding experience, to have an excellent course, to have lots of activities and opportunities, to really understand the benefits of being in a top research and top world university, and to top all this by getting into a really great job, or Masters’ programme.

We can only do this with you and with such fantastic Unions: the Students’ Guild at Streatham and St Lukes and FXU at the Cornwall Campus at Penryn. We never underestimate the importance of our partnership. The sabbatical officers are some of the highest quality people you will find in Higher Education, anywhere!

The 2011 Vision document was really important. It helped me and our staff better understand your priorities, and the Students’

FOREWORDFROM THE DEPUTY VICE-CHANCELLOR

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Guild is right, for example, to highlight the success of the three-week turnaround policy. We all believe that University transforms lives, and we want to do absolutely what we can to make that experience even better for you.

Turning the Students’ Guild’s attention now to Colleges is an extremely important thing for it to do. Imogen and Alex highlight the importance of data to ensure the Vision for each college is of the highest possible quality. That’s a feature of Exeter education: make sure your ideas and arguments are evidence based. We use data all the time. We look again and again at the National Student Survey, for example, at what the scores tell us. Even though we were 7th in the UK this year, we believe we can do better by making continuous improvements. We need you and the Students’ Guild to help us by getting involved, by contributing to this document and by making Exeter’s best education even better.

We wish to thank various people for their contribution to this project. Firstly, thank you to the students at Exeter. It is your comments that are at the heart of every word of these Visions and they are for you. Thank you also to Academic Representatives who work to make change in every discipline across the University and it is your comments in Student Staff Liaison Committee, which have driven these documents forward. You are by far the most important people around here, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

Secondly, we would like to thank various members of Students’ Guild staff for their invaluable contributions; Gary McLachlan, Emily Stevens, Charlie Leyland, and Will Page for their work in collecting high quality data, drafting the Visions and giving the project fantastic staff support throughout. Our colleagues at FXU,

particularly Janice Mitchelson and Chaz Malyon, have also been instrumental both in gathering data from the Cornwall campus and in drafting relevant sections of these Visions. Becky Williamson has undertaken the gargantuan task of proof reading every Vision and Meri Wills has designed the beautiful documents that you are currently reading. Special thanks must also be extended to Dr. James Smith for his exceptional project delivery, his eternal enthusiasm, and his commitment to the pursuit of a high quality vision of student voice.

Finally, thank you to members of the University who have supported the project since the publication of the initial document. We look forward to creating action plans with you for the Visions, and we look forward to our input into the Education Strategy Review.

Imogen Sanders Alex Louch VP Academic Affairs 2012-13 VP Academic Affairs 2013-14

Janice KayDeputy Vice-Chancellor &Professor of Cognitive Neuropsychology

4


In 2011, the University of Exeter Students’ Guild produced the first Students’ Vision for the Future of Education, a document outlining ‘the top 10 educational priorities students told us to campaign on.’

Over the past 10 years, the number of Postgraduate Research Students at Exeter has doubled, with the figure now standing at just under 1700, almost 10% of the University’s overall student population.1 During this time, the nature of studying for a PhD has also changed dramatically, as students now find themselves under more pressure than ever before to complete their studies within three years. In this changing academic climate, the Students’ Guild is redoubling its efforts to provide an exceptional service to PGR students, and this document will provide one of the cornerstones for ensuring that their University experience is the best that it can be.

The Students’ Guild’s first ever Students’ Vision for the Future of Education, was an important document that helped place the Guild and student opinion at the centre of Exeter’s educational experience. There were some great successes as a result but ample challenges remain. Whereas the 2011 Vision mentioned PGRs only sporadically, a major part of the Students’ Guild’s strategic plan for 2013/14 has been to produce a Vision that focuses specifically on the needs to PGR students. This document responds to issues that have been continually raised by Postgraduate researchers throughout the year. The evidence contained within comes from a wide variety of sources – discussions with different groups of PGRs, survey or focus group data from NUS and Students’ Guild, information from each departmental PGR liaison forum, 2011 PRES data, and two years of Guild research on ‘PGR engagement’ with extracurricular activity.

Contained within is a summary of the top ten issues that these sources have raised along with recommendations designed to improve the student experience. The Students’ Guild is committed to following up on all of these issues throughout the next academic year, to ensure that the priorities of postgraduate researchers are met and their expectations are fulfilled.

In pursuit of the best education in the world,

Imogen Sanders Alex Louch VP Academic Affairs 2012-13 VP Academic Affairs 2013-14

INTRODUCTIONFROM THE VICE PRESIDENT ACADEMIC AFFAIRS

1 http://www.exeter.ac.uk/about/facts/studentheadcountsummary/

5


6


A NOTE ON DATAThe Visions for Education are the culmination of two years worth of data gathering. NSS, PTES, and MACE data have been considered, staff have been consulted, and national organisations like NUS have provided guidance. The Students’ Guild has also scoured the Teaching Awards nominations for examples of good practice contained within, and examples are occasionally quoted in the text. However, the main contributors to these Visions are the students of each college, and our thanks go to everyone who has contributed in some way. The main impetus has come from the academic representatives for each college, with Subject Chairs frequently passing key issues and data along to the Guild. However, numerous students from outside of the SSLC have visited the Guild’s ‘Have Your Say Hub’ or the Advice Unit with questions and concerns, all of which have been logged and considered. Open consultation events have also invited students to submit ideas, big or small, to be added to the evidence base, whilst focus groups have helped to clarify student opinion on particularly thorny issues. The result is that the opinions of hundreds of students have been taken into account in compiling the recommendations that are included within these Visions.

Where relevant, individual SSLC minutes or statistical data have been referenced where an issue is explicitly referred to, but no individual student has been named and all comments have been made anonymous.

A NOTE ON THE COMPOSITION OF THE VISIONSAlthough the content of each of the Visions is different, there is naturally significant overlap in some of the issues raised between colleges. As an aide for those interested in tracking University-wide patterns, a summary document collating the issues and recommendations that reappear across colleges will appear on the Students’ Guild website once all of the Visions are finalised. Where points apply across all or several colleges, passages of the same text and recommendations appear verbatim in the Visions to provide additional continuity.

7


In 2011, the Students’ Guild produced the first ever Vision for the Future of Education. The purpose of this section is to provide a very brief breakdown of the impact that the document had, highlighting some areas of success and more specific challenges for the future.

IMPACT

In 2012, when research for the Students’ Visions for the Future of Education began the Students’ Guild sent out a brief survey asking Heads of Department for their views on the 2011 Vision. The results were telling; 67% of those surveyed said that they had actively used the document to shape educational practice within their departments. Of that 67%, all believed that aiming to achieve the standards set by the document had improved the educational experience of their students, with many citing the three-week turnaround policy as the most significant success.

FEEDBACK FROM STAFF AND RATIONALE FOR 2013

When we surveyed staff to discover their opinions on the 2011 Vision for Education, we also asked for their impressions and areas for improvement. Staff feedback tended to be positive, with a good example given below:

“Rather than any one specific example, I think it rather served its purpose of keeping the educational experience high on the agenda for the University and was aspirational in what we should try to work towards.”

In addition to feedback, staff were also asked to make recommendations for the 2013 document. Two main points were raised: a) increased consultation with staff to ensure that the recommendations in the 2013 Vision are achievable and b) a more specific focus on the needs of each college. One academic summed up:

“As a high level document the current version is fine, but now the College level incarnation needs to be customized to the resources, staffing base and wishes of the College students. Like this, you end up with something that meets the desires of the specific students, but is grounded in realism as to what is achievable.”

By producing college based Students’ Visions for the Future of Education we hope to set bespoke, achievable goals for each college that will enhance the educational experience.

HEADLINE SUCCESSES

THREE WEEK TURNAROUND: The highest profile success story to emerge from the 2011 Vision for Education concerned the three-week turnaround policy. Section 2.4 of the Vision made the following recommendation: “From the academic year starting 2011 assignments should be returned to students within three weeks of submission’.”With the support of the University, this policy was implemented with high profile results. In the words of Jonathan Barry, former Dean of Taught Students: “Despite challenges, the introduction of the three-week turnaround in 2011-12 was a success: one measure of this is surely the 7% improvement in the University’s NSS result for ‘promptness of feedback’ this year, after five years of no improvement in this measure overall.”

IMPROVING ACADEMIC REPRESENTATION: Although the academic representation system at Exeter is still evolving, significant strides have been made in line with recommendations from the 2011 Vision for Education. To take some specific examples: in line with recommendation 4.2 PGR liaison forums have been introduced to improve postgraduate representation; ELE pages, increased departmental publicity and a brand new academic representation website have greatly increased the profile of reps in accordance with 4.6; and SSLCs now discuss MACE and NSS results as a matter of course as specified by recommendation 4.8.

CHALLENGES

ENGAGEMENT: Awareness of the Vision for Education amongst staff and students from FCH, INTO, postgraduate researchers, and Exeter Medical School was minimal. By focusing on specific colleges, we hope to extend the impact of our research.

PROVIDING POSTGRADUATE RESEARCH WORKSPACE: Section 5 of the 2011 Vision was devoted to the provision of PGR workspace. Data from the 2012 -2013 PGR liaison forums and PGR Academic Affairs shows that a lack of sufficient workspace remains the major concern for the majority of research students. This is representative of a weaker response to PGR issues across the University, something the 2013 Visions aim to remedy.

STUDENT STAFF RATIO AND ACADEMIC CONTACT: Recommendation 1.6 in the 2011 Vision specified that student staff ratio for seminars should not exceed 15:1. Although some progress has been made in this area, with the University continuing to employ new staff, achievement of this target is some way off. As the University continues to grow and the sector becomes increasingly competitive, this must remain an area of serious focus for the 2013 Visions.

THE VISION FOR EDUCATION 2011

8


EXECUTIVE SUMMARYThe Students’ Guild’s Vision for the Future of Education sets out the following priorities that should be enacted as standard practice for all PGR students. Additional detail and referencing can be found throughout the document. Information on how the Guild will follow-up on these recommendations can be found in the final pages of these documents.

1. A FAIR DEAL FOR POSTGRADUATE TEACHERS

1.1 PGR students enjoy and value the opportunity to teach. Many PGR students would value increased opportunities to participate in teaching, provided that the teaching is fairly allocated and does not have a detrimental impact on their research.

1.2 Students would appreciate clarity on what is being included in GTAs rates of pay through a detailed and explicit job description. This is partially owing to the fact that many GTAs do not receive a contract, but clarity of contracts still need to be improved.

1.3 GTAs contracts should include payment for all of their duties, including all marking, office hours, and provision of feedback.

1.4 All postgraduate teachers should be appointed on merit, through a fair and transparent process in cases where there is more than one applicant for the job. Feedback for unsuccessful applicants is strongly encouraged.

2. TRAINING AND SUPPORT FOR POSTGRADUATE TEACHERS

2.1 The Students’ Guild recommends that all students should have the opportunity to complete LTHE stage 1 before they start teaching. Where possible, students should also have the opportunity to take LTHE stage 2 either before teaching or during their first year in the job.

2.2 Each department should aim to provide a specific induction for all new GTAs.

2.3 All GTAs should receive feedback on their teaching style and content from their module leader. In addition, GTAs should receive the MACE feedback results as a matter of course to help with their career development.

2.4 The Students’ Guild recommends that all new PGRs have the opportunity to shadow an experienced member of teaching staff to help prepare them for teaching, following on from the successful example set by the English department.

4. PGR SPACE – TEACHING SPACE, LIBRARY SPACE, AND INTELLECTUAL ENVIRONMENT

4.1 All PGR students who teach (and their undergraduate students) would value office space within each departmental building.

4.2 Office space for all PGR students continues to remain a priority, particularly in the Humanities and CSSIS.

4.3 The results from PGR focus groups indicate that students want quiet, bookable space within the library focused specifically on the PGR community.

5. SUPERVISION AND MENTORING

5.1 The Students’ Guild recommends that each supervisor should aim to return draft work to their PGR students within four working weeks.

5.2 PGR students have continually requested clarification on the role of their mentors, particularly when it comes to the upgrade procedure. Clarification on the role of mentors (particularly with regard to pastoral and academic responsibilities) would be extremely beneficial.

5.3 Each supervisor and student should create their own individual plan at the start of each academic year. Potential problems and deadlines should be identified ahead of time to ensure as smooth a progression as possible.

5.4 Students do not view upgrade as a box-ticking exercise, but as an important opportunity to receive detailed and thorough criticism of their work. The vast majority of staff provide extremely high quality feedback through the upgrade procedure and departments are encouraged to ensure that this standard is maintained across the board.

3. WELCOMING NEW STUDENTS – AN INFORMATIVE AND ENJOYABLE INDUCTION FOR ALL

3.1 New students value specialised inductions hosted by their departments, so that they feel integrated into their new academic communities.

3.2 Induction should be flexible enough to cater for the needs of a wide variety of students. Part-time students whose lifestyle prevents them from attending should be offered support in other ways.

3.3 The Students’ Guild should endeavour to extend their provision for new PGR students, offering a wider support base and extending the remit of the Postgraduate society.

3.4 Ideally, current PGR students should be involved in creating both departmental handbooks and running inductions.

9

6. COURSE COSTS, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT AND FUNDING SUPPORT

6.1 In light of NUS research and NUS Postgraduate Teaching Survey Feedback, the Students’ Guild recommends that bursaries stipulating teaching as a requirement should be discouraged. No bursaries should be sacrificed, but money should be allocated on research merit and need, without teaching entering into the equation.

6.2 All PGRs should have associated course costs such as printing and library tokens paid for by their college.

6.3 PhD students should not be expected to pay for printing costs associated with teaching out of their own research allowance or personal funds.

6.4 To help alleviate problems concerning student financing, an accurate breakdown of projected course costs and funding allocation should be provided to each student when they begin their PhD.

6.5 Several students have stated that their current research stipend of £600 over three years is insufficient, whilst only being able to access £200 a term is inconvenient. Ideally, the research stipend would be increased to £1000 and more flexibility introduced into its management.

7. PROFESSIONAL AND CAREER DEVELOPMENT

7.1 There is some confusion around continuation status. A clear breakdown of eligibility, potential costs, and requirements should be communicated to students well in advance.

7.2 To aid students in their career development post submission, PGRs should have a date for their viva within one month of submission. Rather than the current ‘guideline’ that recommends this, it should become a fixed target. Furthermore, in all but exceptional circumstances and following consultation between student and internal examiner, Vivas must take place within three months of submission.

7.3 Increased publicity of the tailored support for PGR students looking to pursue both academic and non-academic careers would be useful.

7.4 The Students’ Guild would like to support Exeter’s Researcher Development Programme in identifying the specific training needs of students and developing additional resources to ensure their training needs are met.

7.5 Innovative ways of making these services available to distance based and part-time students should be explored.

7.6 To aid career development, the Students’ Guild recommends that all students be given the opportunity to shadow teaching staff and attend research presentations given by applicants for new academic posts within the University.

8. SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE

8.1 Students would appreciate dedicated PGR social space, ideally within their own departmental buildings, to help foster an academic community.

8.2 PGR Liaison forum reps should be present at all staff meetings as a matter of course and should have a proactive say in how their department is run.

8.3 Students increasingly appreciate and enjoy the opportunity to present their research and learn about the vibrant research communities within their own college. As such, colleges should continue to develop PGR research conferences and events.

9. DOCTORAL TRAINING CENTRES

9.1 Clear, concise, and coherent information on Doctoral Training centres should be made openly available to all students, both current and prospective.

9.2 The students’ union to which each PGR student is affiliated should be clearly communicated at the start of the degree process. Exactly what services their “governing body” Student Union actually offers should also be communicated, along with what they can expect from their location-based institution.

10. PART – TIME PGRS

10.1 To recognise that the priorities of part-time and distance learners are different

10.2 The Students’ Guild recommends that part-time students should meet at the start of each year and identify a personalised plan with their supervisor, recognising life priorities and potential difficulties.

10.3 Part-time students have expressed that they would greatly appreciate, advice, case-studies, and examples of part-time PhD students in their areas who have successfully completed their PhDs, allowing them to identify problems ahead of time. This should form part of induction for new part-time students.

10.4 Reasons for PGR withdrawal should be set-out in statistical terms to students at the start the PhD process so that people know when to seek help.

10


1Several things came across strongly from these sources of data. Primarily, the majority of students who contributed greatly valued the opportunity to teach, both as an enjoyable experience and in terms of career development.3 As such, opportunities for PGRs to continue teaching should be maintained as much as possible in the coming years.

However, both the PGRLFs and the NUS survey revealed that PTAs have some serious concerns over their treatment while in post. Most strikingly, many students believed that they were significantly underpaid and overworked. At Exeter, the responses to the NUS survey indicate that 21 of the 98 GTAs earn less than minimum wage in real terms, a figure of 21%. In addition, 49 out of 98 claimed they were paid less than the amount stated on their contract.4 One CLES student provided the following comment:

“While the wage is generous for the hours spent teaching, markings hours actually represent the majority of time allocation for a given module. Overall, resulting in up to well over 70 hours of unpaid work (for around 20 hours paid work) per year. This is also inconsistent as demonstrating for three hours on a module with no assessment, nets the same wage as a three hours on a module with 30 hours marking.”5

The confusion ultimately springs from a lack of clarity in the composition of PGR contracts. Less than half the PGR students responding to the survey received a contract and those that did regularly complained that the contract did not clearly explain what they were getting paid for or how their final payment was arrived at. Often, students were under the impression that all marking, office hours, training, and feedback were unpaid, leading to deep dissatisfaction with their wage.6 As stated in the Executive Summary, the Students’ Guild recommends the following measures be introduced to combat the problem:

a) Students would appreciate clarity on what is being included in GTAs rates of pay through a detailed and explicit job description.

b) GTAs contracts should include payment for all of their duties, including all marking, office hours, and provision of feedback.

The other issue that caused the highest levels of student dissatisfaction was in the appointment of teaching staff and application process to become a PTA. The following is a quote from the NUS Postgraduate Teaching Survey report:

“The most common complaint concerned a lack of transparency in the procedure. Often, GTAs complained that there was no explanation given for why one student would be allocated more hours of teaching than another, or for why students had been allocated to particular modules when they felt that their own expertise could have been better utilised elsewhere. There were also concerns that teaching allocation was not always competency based. Applicants failed to understand how teaching skill was effectively assessed before decisions were made on who would be teaching.”7

The survey indicated quite clearly that student would appreciate departments putting in application and interview processes for the allocation of PTA posts. Not only would this ensure that the best person for the job was allocated teaching, but it would also provide valuable interview experience for those looking to pursue an academic career. Following on from this, students would also appreciate the opportunity to receive feedback on their application to teach, with the reasons why unsuccessful candidates were rejected clearly explained.

1. A FAIR DEAL FOR POSTGRADUATE TEACHERSThe first two sections of this report are informed by a substantial amount of data. Not only have numerous PGR Liaison forums raised teaching as an issue in some form over the course of the 2012/2013 academic year, but the NUS Postgraduate Teaching Survey gathered opinion from 50% of Exeter’s PTAs – an exceptionally good response rate.2 The Postgraduate Teaching Survey formed part of an NUS project to assess how Graduate Teaching Assistants are treated throughout the UK. All postgraduates who teach were offered the opportunity to fill out the brief survey in November and December 2012. The University of Exeter received 98 responses from GTAs, and the data is used extensively to inform these sections.

2 Smith, 2013, 2-3 and Report on PGRLFs term 3, May – June, 2013. PGR Liaisons Forums, 2012/2013, term 1: Archaeology, History, Biosciences, Business, CLES Cornwall, Geography and Psychology; PGR Liaisons Forums, 2012/2013, term 2: Biosciences, Sport and Health Sciences, Psychology, CLES Cornwall, Geography, Archaeology, Engineering. For confirmation that this trend persists in 13/14 see Report on PGRLFs, term 1 13/14.3 Smith, 2013. See, in particular, page 4 on motivations for teaching and 15-17 for supporting comments.4 Smith, 2013, 7-10.5 Anonymous CLES student, NUS Postgraduate Teaching Survey, 2012.6 Smith, 2013, 7-10.7 Smith, 2013, 5.

11


1 22. TRAINING AND SUPPORT FOR POSTGRADUATE TEACHERSThe second major issue for consideration based upon the PTA data concerns the training and support provided for new postgraduate teachers. Several students commented that students generally appreciated the high quality training provided by LTHE staff and the vast majority of students were able to attend training before they began teaching.8 This standard needs to be maintained, hence the first recommendation in the executive summary: all students should continue to have the opportunity to complete LTHE stage 1 before they start teaching.

However, there was a concern from students that they would often be marking or planning lessons before they had experienced detailed training in these areas. One student summed the problem up as follows:

“Many of us were teaching at the same time as we were on the training course, so it would have been helpful is the course started a week earlier than the first classes we taught. As it was, everything was slightly too late. I attended the class on lesson planning after teaching my first lesson, and I attended the class on marking after completing my first load of marking.”9

Following consultation with the University’s Education, Quality and Enhancement unit, the Students’ Guild understands the substantial practical problems with training large numbers of PTAs before they have started teaching. However, where possible, students would appreciate the opportunity to take LTHE stage 2 either before teaching or during their first year of teaching.

Furthermore, there were often concerns that although the training provided by LTHE was comprehensive and enjoyable, it could not tackle the departmental specific needs of each student.10 A comment from another PTA encapsulates the problem:

“The training included graduate students from various fields and teaching various types of classes (seminars and / or lectures). As a consequence, the training was very general. Following / shadowing a teacher over a couple of months may be a more useful experience.”11

This leads onto the next to recommendations within the executive summary:

a) Each department should aim to provide a specific induction for all new GTAs.

b) The Students’ Guild recommends that all new PGRs have the opportunity to shadow an experienced member of teaching staff to help prepare them for teaching, following on from the successful example set by the English department.

Departmental inductions have the immeasurable benefit of introducing students to the specific problems and difficulties that they will face in their day to day teaching cycle. The shadowing initiative goes one step further by giving new PTAs the opportunity to sit in on the classes of an experienced member of staff, allowing them to observe good practice and gain the benefit of a mentor, before they begin teaching themselves. This practice has been in very successful operation in the English department for some time, and several PTAs from other departments expressed admiration for the scheme in the NUS survey.12

The final problem that that the PTA data has shed light on relates to students desire to receive detailed feedback on their work. The figures from the NUS survey are illuminating:

41 out of 98 (42%) said that the lecturer from the course that they were teaching had provided formal feedback on the course that they were teaching.

46 out of 98 (47%) said that they had access to formal feedback from the students on the course that they were teaching.13

For career development purposes and for students to be able to critically reflect on their teaching feedback from both staff and students would be invaluable, and it is clear that there is room for improvement here. This data has inspired the final recommendation in the executive summary:

c) All GTAs should receive feedback on their teaching style and content from their module leader. In addition, GTAs should receive the MACE feedback results as a matter of course to help with their career development.

8 Smith, 2013, 13-14. 9 Anonymous Humanities student, NUS Postgraduate Teaching Survey, 2012.10 Smith, 2013, 13-14.11 Anonymous CSSIS student, NUS Postgraduate Teaching Survey, 2012.12 Smith, 2013, 15-17.13 Smith, 2013, 14.

12


314 PGR Liaisons Forums, 2012/2013, term 1 and 2: Maths and Computing and Physics; 2012/2013, term 2 Engineering and Biosciences; 2012/2013, term 1 Theology, Archaeology, and Geography. See also, PGR Academic Affairs, 2012/2013 terms 1, 2 and 3. Postgraduate Research Annual review, 2012.15 PG Induction – Summary of Initial feedback, McLachlan, April 2012.16 For a summary, see PGR Academic Affairs, term 1. See also, PGR Liaisons Forums 2012/2013, term 1, Maths and Computing and Biosciences.17 PG Induction – Summary of Initial feedback, McLachlan, April 2012.17 Postgraduate Research Annual review, 2012, Institute of Arab and Islamic Studies, section 5, on induction for hard to reach groups like part-time students: ‘A particular problem is failure to attend

induction and consequent lack of awareness of the University’s requirements. We do inform them that they are expected to do this or read the material online but they are often unresponsive’18 Anonymous Humanities student, 2013/2014, Guild PG induction planning group, May 2013.19 McLachlan, 2012: Summary of Guild issues from 2011 Postgraduate Research Student Experience.20 Report on PGRLFs term 1, November - December, 2013.

3. WELCOMING NEW STUDENTS – AN INFORMATIVE AND ENJOYABLE INDUCTION FOR ALL

According to the Students’ Guild’s Report on term 1 2012 / 2013 Postgraduate Liaison Forums, seven departmental forums suggested improvements could be made with the quality of the induction new PGR students had received.14 Departmental inductions were highly valued, and the Guild sees the maintenance of inductions hosted by each department as a continued priority. The content of the inductions is an area that needs to be tailored to each college, but the results of the Guild’s 2012 focus group on PGR academic induction highlighted the following three areas as important:

• It should be clearly conveyed that Exeter values PG students.

• The ways in which everyone can contribute to research excellence should be made explicit.

• Research information and personal interactions helped make feel new students an active part of their new department.15

New students suggested that it would be great to meet their academic staff and new PGR peers to hear about their research. Information on events such as research seminars, reading groups, regular social events, and departmental resources should be provided at the earliest possible opportunity so that everyone can get involved. Furthermore, friendly departmental events such as meals out or drinks receptions also helped to break the ice. Finally, it has been suggested by two PGR liaison forums that the lack of a comprehensive induction is one of the primary reasons for the lack of a vibrant PGR research community or a well-populated PGR representation network.16 Getting things right at the start of term is the key to making students feel like a part of their community throughout their time at Exeter.

One of the most common problems was that inductions often missed hard to reach groups of students, particularly part-time students or those who were studying abroad.17 This is a thorny problem, as the life priorities of students for who full-time study is an impossibility need to be managed alongside the time capabilities of staff at the busy start of term. However, missing inductions can clearly lead to missing important information that subsequently puts additional pressures onto students. The nature of this problem is very specific to each department, and thus

defies the conventional approach of the Students’ Guild Visions to give specific recommendations. What is clear is that our members would value an induction that is flexible enough to cater for the needs of a wide variety of students. Part-time students whose lifestyle prevents them from attending should be offered support in other ways.

Another aspect that new students really valued was the active involvement of current PGR students in welcoming them to the University. One Humanities student provided the following comment:

“Who knows what life in the department is like for PhD students better than current PhD students? My department ran an informal lunch at the start of term when I could meet most of the current PGR students and chat about life doing a PHD at Exeter. I learnt how things worked, but I also made some friends which was invaluable having just arrived in a strange new city!”18

This is also an area in which the Students’ Guild needs to review its own practices and seek out better interaction with new PGR students. To quote the Guild report on the results of the 2011 PRES survey:

“PGR Students are disengaged to the point of almost complete absence from student life in the form of the Guild structures.”19

The situation has improved over the past two years (for example, an increase of about 300% in numbers of PGRs attending academic representation meetings),20 but much more can still be done. In particular, the efforts and resources that the Students’ Guild puts into welcoming new PGR students needs to be increased, with a coherent plan in place to support the Postgraduate society at the start of the academic year. The Guild website should also be updated to make it clear that postgraduate students remain at the forefront of our thinking, whilst some comprehensive research into what PGR students want from the Students’ Guild is an absolute necessity.

13


3 44. PGR SPACE – TEACHING SPACE, LIBRARY SPACE, AND INTELLECTUAL ENVIRONMENT

21 Students Guild Vision for Education, 2011, 6.22 PGR Liaisons Forums, 2012/2013, term 1 and 2: Maths and Computing and Theology; 2012/2013, term 1, Classics, History, Geography, and IAIS; 2012/2013, term 2, Physics, Education, and Politics. For summary, See Academic Affairs, 2012/2013 terms 1, 2 and 3. Postgraduate Research Annual review, 2012, throughout.23 Classics PGR Liaisons Forum, 2012/2013, term 1. It is also noteworthy that in this particular case the Undergraduates students also raised the lack of PGR Office space as an issue, as they no longer had a convenient location to receive feedback from their PTAs. Classics SSLC, 2012/2013 term 1.24 In particular, see Academic Affairs, 2012/2013 terms 1 and 2.25 PGR Library Space Consultation Focus Group, March, 2013.26 See minutes of HASS PGR Academic Affairs, term 1 2013/14. Report on PGRLFs, term 1 13/14.

For many years, PGR space has been a major issue for students at Exeter and this pattern shows no sign of changing. The 2011 Vision made the following recommendations:

5.1. All Graduate Teaching Assistants (GTAs) at any level must have office space available

5.2. All research students who state that they require permanent office space on campus during their first year must be provided with personal or shared space, with secure space, computer facilities, and network access

5.3. Students who already have facilities must not have them removed in order to meet the minimum standard faster

5.4. Future expansion and capital expenditure must take in to account the needs of postgraduate Students21

This is one of the few areas from the 2011 Vision, where little visible progress has been made and, in some cases, things appear to have gone backwards. The problem appears to be most acute in the Humanities and CSSIS, although apart from issues relating to GTAs, working space is the most raised issue within PGR Liaison Forums.22 Not all PTAs have desk space in their department, few PGRs feel that they have good space to work within their college buildings, and there continue to be grumbles over the appropriateness of the library for a research-intensive university. The following comment, recorded in the minutes from the Classics PGRLF encapsulates the problem:

“The recent withdrawal of study space available within Classics has had an impact on the PGR community and the ability of being able to meet with fellow colleagues and UG students. PGR’s work closely with UG students and academics and the lack of space available is impacting on their ability to maintain these close working relationships.”23

PGR Academic Affairs meetings have also registered increased frustration on the space issue, with representatives feeling increasingly perturbed by the apparent lack of movement on the issue. The following points in the executive summary remain a priority for the Students’ Guild and our PGR members:

4.1 All PGR students who teach (and their undergraduate students) would value office space within each departmental building.

4.2 Office space for all PGR students continues to remain a priority, particularly in the Humanities and CSSIS.

Furthermore, students would be extremely appreciative of increased communication on the issue.24 Most understand that there is a finite amount of space in the University, but would appreciate a frank and speedy response to any queries that arise.

Library space is also an issue for part-time students who only visit campus for short periods of time. For such students, it is essential for them to have a readily accessible, quiet space to work. The results of the recent focus group held to discuss PGR space indicated that students want quiet, bookable, space within the library focused specifically on the PGR community.25 In 2013/14, complaints that the Forum Library was not an appropriate research space for PGRs have reached new highs, with noise and an overly relaxed atmosphere the issues most commonly raised.26

Although the consensus is that the University should focus on reducing noise and distraction in the Forum Library, exploring other solutions is also encouraged. Having an area of the library or the Research Commons devoted to PGR students, with desks that can be booked online, lets students know that they will have an appropriate atmosphere in which to work when they visit the library.

14


527 PRES, 2011 and 2013.28 For examples see, PGR Liaisons Forum, 2012/2013, term 1: Theology; 2012/2013, term 2: CLES PLC, Biosciences, CLES Cornwall, and Maths and Computing.29 Arising from confidential discussions between students and the Guild advice unit / Research and Representation.30 Postgraduate Research Annual review, 2012.31 PGR Liaisons Forum, 2012/2013, term 1, Theology; 2012/2013 term 2: CLES PLC, Biosciences, CLES Cornwall, and Maths and Computing.32 Postgraduate Research Annual review, 2012, Humanities.

The results of the 2011 PRES survey suggested that 80% of Exeter students consider themselves to be happy with their supervisors, and results in 2013 have been even more positive.27 Furthermore, it is abundantly clear that the vast majority of PGRs value the time and effort that supervisors put into their students, especially given the increased pressures on teaching time and research production that most academic staff face. However, there is a feeling that some organisational and administrative aspects of the supervisor/supervisee relationship could be improved upon.28

The most significant problem concerns feedback on draft work that has been submitted. The Students’ Guild has received a number of complaints from students concerned that their supervisor has taken an excessive amount of time to return draft work.29 Although taught students benefit from three-week turnaround, there is no such rule in place for PGRs. The result is that in rare cases, some students are waiting an extremely long time to hear anything about their work – one anonymous student came to the Guild having waited three months without hearing anything back on a final draft of his thesis. To combat this problem the Students’ Guild would champion a similar rule to the three-week turnaround policy that exists for undergraduates - each supervisor should aim to return draft work to their PGR students within four working weeks.

Furthermore, the Students’ Guild recommends that every PGR student meet with their supervisor at the start of each academic year to put together their own personal plans and outline any potential problems or deadlines throughout the year. Although equivalents of this process exist, there is a feeling particularly amongst part-time students that they would benefit from frank discussions with their supervisors to look ahead. Naturally, this needs to be adaptable to accommodate life problems and unexpected events, a fact illustrated by the significant part-time drop-out rates that are attributed to a wide variety of life pressures.30

5. SUPERVISION AND MENTORING

PGR students have also requested clarification on the role of mentors: there is general confusion on what a mentor is actually supposed to do – is their role pastoral, academic, or a combination of both? As students do not really know, mentors can often be underutilised to the point of never being consulted. This academic year, five PGLRFs have raised mentors as an area that has caused some confusion amongst their students.31 For the sake of clarity, a clear overview of the role of each mentor, specific to each department, should be included as a part of every student’s induction. The same minutes also identify a problem with the clarity of information concerning upgrade, with the processes and procedures appearing to mutate from year to year.32 To allow students to plan ahead confidently, a clear introduction to the upgrade process should be provided at induction and should be made clearly available online to every student via My PGR.

It is also worth re-emphasising that students do not view upgrade as a box-ticking exercise, but as an important opportunity to receive detailed and thorough criticism of their work. In rare cases, the Students’ Guild has received reports of upgrade meetings that last no more than 10 minutes, with students understandably annoyed that their 20 000 words received rather limited feedback. Staff responsible for reading and commenting on upgrade work need to provide detailed feedback to their students, identifying potentially problematic issues ahead of time and ensuring that they give the upgrade procedure the care and attention that it deserves.

15


5 66. COURSE COSTS, RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, AND FUNDING SUPPORT.

33 Various queries and concerns related to funding, all of which inform this section, can be found at PGR Liaisons Forum, 2012/2013, term 1 and 2, Psychology; 2012/2013, term 1: Sport and Health Sciences and Physics. 2012/2013 term 2: Raised at CSSIS college level meeting.34 This item can also be found in each and every undergraduate Vision for Education.35 HASS PGR Academic Affairs, term 1 2013/14.36 Smith, 2013, 15-17.37 Arising from confidential discussions between students and the Guild Advice Unit / Research and Representation.

The financial position of many PhD students continues to present challenges and the Students’ Guild is committed to doing everything that we can to support students through their studies.33 Therefore, on a base level, the Students’ Guild would support reducing costs as much as possible. All PGRs should have associated course costs such as printing and inter-library loans paid for by their college.34

However, there are other elements specific to PGRs that can also be improved. One refers to teaching. The NUS Postgraduate Teaching Survey invited students to make additional comments on their teaching experience. One imperative point is that, PhD students should not be expected to pay for printing costs associated to teaching out of their own research allowance or personal funds.35

One area that received particular attention was teaching bursaries.36 Although teaching bursaries that stipulate teaching as a requirement are becoming rarer, the Students’ Guild would support their abolition across the University. As several PTAs pointed out, there is absolutely no guarantee that those receiving the bursaries make good teachers, and the practice often denies opportunities to others quite unfairly. In light of NUS research and NUS Postgraduate Teaching Survey Feedback, the Students’ Guild recommends that bursaries stipulating teaching as a requirement should be discouraged. No bursaries should be sacrificed, but money should be allocated on research merit and need, without teaching entering into the equation.

Furthermore, PGR students have also raised concerns through their PGRLFs over the research funding allocated to each student when they begin studying. Currently, the standard £600 over three years, divided into £200 a year, is seen as inflexible and awkward. Often students feel that this represents only a fraction of the travelling costs required to research their work effectively, particularly considering Exeter’s geographical location. It is also occasionally inconvenient that only £200 can be taken out each term, particularly if student wish to undertake an expensive project in one year and have little use for the money outside of this. Ideally, the research stipend would be increased to £1000 and more flexibility would be introduced into its management.

Finally, to help prepare students for the financial rigours of a PHD, the Students’ Guild requests that a breakdown of anticipated costs be provided to students by their colleges when they start their studies. Students have come to the Guild Advice Unit or representation hub, and simply suggested that the accumulated costs of doing a PHD have been a surprise.37 A simple guide could alleviate these concerns and help students plan ahead before they begin their studies.

16


77. PROFESSIONAL AND CAREER DEVELOPMENTThe final submission of the thesis can be a difficult time for PGR students for a number of reasons, not least because they need to move onto the next step of their careers. This process is not helped by the current indistinct guidelines concerning the post-submission stage of the PHD and the procedures surrounding the set-up of Vivas. There is a consensus that the guidelines around the viva need to be tightened up, with procedures in place to allow students peace of mind. The Executive Summary stipulates the following:

7.2 PGRs should have a date for their viva within one month of submission. Rather than the current ‘guideline’ that recommends this, this should become a fixed target. Furthermore, in all but exceptional circumstances and following consultation between student and internal examiner, Vivas must take place within three months of submission.

Another related issue that still causes students anxiety is the transfer to continuation status.38 For example, things as simple as how to transfer onto continuation status or how much the process costs are still unclear to a large number of students. In order to combat this confusion, something as simple as a clear breakdown of eligibility, potential costs, and requirements should be communicated to students at the beginning of their third year or sooner.

It has also been noted that many PGRs feel that more could be done to support them in their future careers. RDP sessions on issues like career development and publication are often felt to be a rather superficial guide to developing ones career, and students have once again stated that some tailored support from within their own department would be ideal, whilst an increased PGR focus within the Careers Zone would be appreciated.39 Many PGR students are unaware of the bespoke support offered to them by the Careers Zone, a service that has grown exponentially over the last year. Increasing the publicity of these services would undoubtedly be a great help to many students.

38 For specific examples see PGRLF minutes from Physics and Classics, 2013/14, term 1.39 The nature of these concerns naturally varies dramatically from department to department, but various concerns with aspects of Career development have minuted for : PGR Liaisons Forum, 2012/2013, term 1, Classics, English, Psychology, and CLES Cornwall; 2012/2013 term 2: Biosciences and Law. CSSIS appears to have made significant strides in this area and is a current example of very good practice.40 Report on PGRLFs term 1, November - December, 2013, identified RDP as the fourth most raised issue through PGRLFs, with various aspects of the courses raised as concerns. These issues continue to be addressed in 2013/14 - Report on PGRLFs, term 1 13/14.

Another area that has developed rapidly over the past few years is Exeter’s Researcher Development Programme. Increased participation and ever improving feedback on RDP is encouraging, although areas for development do remain.40 These include:

a) Ensuring that online training and resources is of an excellent standard for distance learners, part-time students, and those who simply prefer to learn in the comfort of their own home. Where possible, arranging sessions on days when large numbers of PT and distance based students need to be on campus would be effective.

b) Making sure that training become s more college and departmental specific. Although Researcher Development Training is split into HASS and STEM streams, concerns are sometimes raised that sessions are still too generic and would benefit from being more discipline specific.

c) Preparation for an academic career. There is still a perception that more guidance is required on discipline specific career progression for PGRs, to ensure that those Exeter student who want to pursue an academic career are fully empowered to do so.

In light of these areas for potential improvement, the Student’ Guild would support Researcher Development in identifying the specific training needs of Exeter students and developing additional resources to ensure their training needs are met.

Finally, the Students’ Guild would encourage each department to integrate their PGRs into departmental life, once again beginning with a comprehensive induction, before continuing to involve students at all levels. In particular, the Guild recommends that all students be given the opportunity to shadow teaching staff and attend research presentations given by applicants for new academic posts within the University. Where PGRs are keen to seek out such opportunities, they should be encouraged to gain experiences from their academic colleagues, thereby preparing them for their future careers.

17


7 88. SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL CLIMATE

41 For summary, see Academic Affairs, terms 1, 2, and 3. Social Space appears most commonly as an issue in the PGRLF minutes from CEMPs.42 PRES 2011. 43 PRES 2013 and Report on PGRLFs, term 1 13/14.44 Report on PGRLFs term 1, November - December, 2013.

Academic PGR Space has been addressed as an issue earlier in this document, but this should not detract from the fact that dedicated PGR social space remains a key issue in its own right.41 Once again, the space restrictions within the University make this problematic, but the message that students would appreciate dedicated PGR social space, ideally within their own departmental buildings to help foster an academic community, continues to be a priority. In previous years, the University of Exeter has always scored relatively poorly in terms of intellectual climate and research community in PRES.42 The 2013 PRES data continued this disappointing trend with Research Culture providing Exeter’s lowest scoring category, whilst problems related to research culture were the most discussed item on PGRLF agendas in term 1 of 2013/14.43 Although a significant number of factors contribute to this problem, a lack of space for postgraduates to interact within their departments and more broadly remains one of the areas that students most frequently complain about. For PGRs to feel fully integrated into their departments, appropriate space remains a priority. Law remains an example of best practice in this area, with PhD students within the department suggesting that their new space within the department has greatly enhanced their research experience.

In addition, to the department level recommendations outlined above, it would also be highly beneficial if each college could offer well advertised college research events to foster inter-disciplinary research awareness and colleges should seek to source additional funding for such research focused events. Events such as the College of Humanities PGR research conference are increasingly well regarded and well attended by PGR students,

and similar events for each college would be of real benefit. Not only do college research events foster a sense of intellectual community, but they also help to spread ideas and encourage research creativity. Students increasingly appreciate and enjoy the opportunity to present their research and learn about the vibrant communities within their own college. As such, colleges should continue to develop PGR research conferences and events. Where possible, it is also thought highly beneficial to introduce interdisciplinary opportunities for developing researchers to broaden their horizons and gain experience from varied research perspectives. Naturally, such college level events should compliment departmental specific activities such as reading groups and PGR research seminars, which departments should continue to make every effort to support.

One area where college and departmental support has made a big impact in some areas over the past year is with the Postgraduate Research Liaison Fora. The increase in PGR representation and the amount of data being passed to the Students’ Guild is extremely useful in identifying problematic issues, and it is hoped that PGR liaison fora will continue to flourish.44 To enhance the effectiveness of PGRLFs still further, representatives should be present at staff meetings and should have a proactive say in how their department is run. Not only would this enhance the effectiveness of the PGRLFs, but it also gives the PGR community an active voice on departmental issues that affect them personally. Having a say on how decisions are made would go a long way to making PGR students feel like fully integrated members of their department.

18


99. DOCTORAL TRAINING CENTRES

The information set out in this section is derived from the personal satisfaction indicators for the satellite campuses of the University of Exeter, as well as the interactional experiences and related materials for students studying at Exeter, but registered with the Peninsula Medical School through Plymouth University.

The main part of the problem with satellite locations or those students studying on a site where they are not necessarily registered is that welcome materials for all students are generally produced at such a generic level that they fail to relate key messages to students whose experience will lie outside the mainstream demographic. Subsequently, students studying on a different campus to where they were registered are often presented with an inappropriate series of information. In order to tackle this problem, clear, concise, and coherent information on Doctoral Training Centres should be made openly available to all students, both current and prospective.

PhD students in particular feel isolated – this comes through in PRES and the PGR responses to the International Student Barometer at all sample points over the past three years.25 Any additional circumstances which enhance this sense of isolation or which increase confusion about a sense of identity and belonging are to be avoided. With respect to the Doctoral Training Centres in particular, co-location is not a new experience at Exeter and it is not a new kind of relationship given the existing partnerships between Exeter and the Cornwall campus or Exeter and Plymouth at the Peninsula Medical School.46

45 PRES 2009, 2011. ISB – particular note of the presentation by Aaron Porter in 2011-12.46 Any partnership arrangement being roughly comparative. 47 Participation rates of demographic groupings including location in Student Societies and Student Elections. Focus Group data from 2012-13 on exclusion felt by international students; particularly at postgraduate level. The number of international PGT students refusing permission to data-share.48 Estelle M. Philips and Derek S. Pugh, How To Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and their Supervisors, (Open University Press, Berks. 2010 4th Edition). This data is also clear from guide books written for PhD students which emphasise that the less ‘ordinary’ an experience is the more likely a student is to feel isolated, stressed and encounter problems with their supervision, their inclusion and their progression. i.e. Estelle M. Philips and Derek S. Pugh, How To Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and their Supervisors, (Open University Press, Berks. 2010 5th Edition)49 Focus Group data – Tremough based PGR students learning at distance: 2011.50 Education Act 1994, s.2251 Anonymous Peninsula Student data from 2009, 2011 and 2013. Cross-comparison with Exeter-registered students on election participation also cf. PGCE students, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013.52 Comparison between satisfaction indicated by responses to the NSS Q 23 (2012) by site/course.

We know from participation rates over time and also from satisfaction and other key indicators47 that students registered at Exeter on other campuses, or those registered externally and present on Exeter campuses feel more isolated and confused about the service offerings than ordinary Exeter-based students. The significantly higher isolation – and Dubai in particular is a very strong example – leads to drop-out rates in significantly higher proportion than would be expected amongst their comparative cohorts.48 The experience of Tremough and Peninsula Medical School students teaches us that students at a distance from the main services feel no sense of belonging.49

The Students’ Guild has clearly set out duties50 and the conditions of membership. It is able to offer services to all students in the locality regardless of registration status; it is not however obliged to allow those students to vote unless they are full members, and it is in areas like participation that the PCMD experience has been significantly less inclusive, even on the St. Luke’s Campus.51 Communication between Workers in Democracy and Representation between Bristol, Bath and Exeter indicated that only Exeter staff had considered those points for DTC students in particular ; having the most direct experience of dealing with these kinds of arrangements that leave students dissatisfied with the experience that they have had at University.52 If every student registered at Exeter is truly to have “the Exeter Experience,” the students’ union to which each PGR student is affiliated should be clearly communicated at the start of the degree process. Exactly what services their “governing body” Student Union actually offers should also be communicated, along with what they can expect from their location-based institution.

19


91010. PART-TIME PGR STUDENTS

The evidence-base for most of this section is taken from generic experiences of PhD students across all UK institutions and US-based findings as set out by Philips & Pugh.53

The evidence that the Students’ Guild has, alongside the evidence-base used by Phillips & Pugh, shows that the experience of part-time students and their participation (and the rates of participation demonstrated through voting in elections, joining Societies and other volunteering activities offered by the Guild) is catastrophically worse than full-time students on equivalent courses.54 Where 10% or higher of the PGR student body participates in activities for which the Guild has measurable data, the figures for part-time students indicate almost total absence from inclusionary campus life.

These are students who are more likely to be older, more likely to be parents, more likely to have caring responsibilities, and are more likely to have full-time jobs in order to maintain a certain level of income so that they can study in the first place.55 It should also be recognised that demanding campus presence for part-time students who do not get any consideration in the provision of office space or other working arrangements on campus, and who may also live at a distance, is something that needs further consideration. Put simply, more emphasis needs to be put on the fact that the priorities of part-time and distance learners are different. To treat them in the same way that full-time students are treated and expect them to observe the same time-frame (based on assumptions made from full-time student perspectives) is a failing strategy, and could cause those students to withdraw, a fact illustrated by the high non-progression rates of part-time Exeter students.56

The University should also review induction and measurement of progress with respect to part-time students in order to achieve a frame of reference for part-time PhDs. Part-time students have indicated that they would greatly appreciate, advice, case-studies, and examples of part-time PhD students in their areas who have successfully completed their PhDs, allowing them to identify problems ahead of time. This should form part of induction for new part-time students.

53 Estelle M. Philips and Derek S. Pugh, How To Get a PhD: A Handbook for Students and their Supervisors, (Open University Press, Berks. 2010 5th Edition)54 Most demonstrably, Guild election data: of the 7735 students who voted in Guild elections this year, 2 were PT Undergrad, 9 were PT PGR, and 19 were PT PGT. According to the student headcount summary, there are well over 1000 part-time students at Exeter, 465 of which are PGR. http://www.exeter.ac.uk/about/facts/studentheadcountsummary/ Part – time PGR society membership is also negligible.55 Perhaps particularly significant in the case of professional education students. Postgraduate Research Annual review, 2012.56 Postgraduate Research Annual review, 2012. 15% of part-time Humanities students not-progressing see particularly response from Drama and Theology.57 Being an extension of existing arrangements on best practise rather than a new system.

This will establish the real-world experience of those students, and take account of their personal circumstances to give a far better and inclusionary experience. These arrangements should then inform the decisions that form part of the individualised contract arrangements between Supervisor/Supervisee.57 The Students’ Guild therefore recommends that part-time students should meet at the start of each year and identify a personalised plan with their supervisor, recognising life priorities and potential difficulties.

It is also suspected that providing more information on why part-time students drop-out at the start of their PhD journey, could forewarn them of potential pitfalls and help prevent problems before they occur. For example, although improvements have been made in the flexibility around interruptions, it should be recognised that interrupting a part-time course is a significant factor in withdrawal. Time sensitive methods of dealing with family or work-related problems, that have a far higher impact on the lives of part-time students, should be incorporated into submission targets from the start of every part-time PhD, considering factors on an individual basis which might cause problems. In light of this, reasons for withdrawal should be set-out in statistical terms at the start the PhD process so that people know when to seek help.

For part-time (often self-funding) PhD students at Exeter there is a strong desire to review the complete process; engaging with current and former PhD part-time students to achieve a far richer and more complete experience across the board.

20


20


TARGETS AND IMPACT MEASURES

The aim of the Students’ Guild is to have a positive impact on the academic and personal experience of all PGR students. It is our hope that the PGR Vision for Education will help achieve demonstrable change across the University, culminating in a significantly improved PRES performance in two years time. In order to ensure progress on every issue within the PGR Vision, the Guild will commit to monitoring the progress that each college is making on these issues on a regular basis. The following sources of information will be used to monitor improvement over the next two years:

• Student monitoring through PGRLFs and PGR Academic Affairs• Changes to completion rates and drop-out rates• The University’s Annual Quality review• PRES results

The Students’ Guild is committed to working alongside the University to ensure that the recommendations contained within this Vision are implemented. At the end of each term, the Guilds’ Research and Representation team will produce a short report for each college, looking at how each college is responding to their students’ needs and inviting the college to consider further suggestions for improvement. This report will be student-led, placing our PGR Liaison Fora at the forefront of quality assurance and review.

Through these means, we hope to ensure that the profile of the Visions is increased and that more students will continue to get involved with their education in the future.

21


22


vision for the future of education: pgr

Documents

students forewordfrom

times university

higher education

feature of exeter education

welcoming new students

students guilds attention

world university

important people