1. Shiv Shanmugam (SHLS), Heather Gray (SHLS), Paul McKenna (SEBE), Siobhan White (GSBS), Scott Rooney (PhD student), Yetunde Ogedengbe & Eilidh Fulton (Students Association)
Lesley McAleavy (AQD)

2. Project Drivers & GCU Context
Student Experience Action Plan 2020 (Objectives 1.1; 1.2)
Strategy for Learning
GCU Community: Working Together in Partnership 2017
NSS 2017 Qs 21, under ‘Learning Community and ‘Student Voice’

3. Project Goals
Scope ‘good’ partnership working practice(s) across the HEI sector.
Quantify & review GCU’s current partnership practices & activities.
Collate case examples of partnership working at GCU.
Explore the ways in which students and staff can partner together at GCU.
This Photo by Unknown Author is licensed under CC BY-NC-ND

4. Desired Project Outputs
Enhanced GCU Partnership working policy with clear operationalisation processes.
Online Good Practice Guidelines, resources and signposting materials for students and staff to encourage and embed sustainable practices
Inspirational case studies on good partnership working practices by the GCU Community.
Recommendation on capturing partnership working as part of GCU’s AQD Programme monitoring processes and documentation.

5. Project Impact Q21 Q23 Q24 Q25 GCU 62% 81% 69% 49% Learning community
Q21
Q23
Q24
Q25
GCU
62%
81%
69%
49%
Learning community
21. I feel part of a community of staff and students.
Student voice
23. I have had the right opportunities to provide feedback on my course.
24. Staff value students’ views and opinions about the course.
25. It is clear how students’ feedback on the course has been acted on.

6. Project Stages Completed stages
Staff PL survey of current PW practices
Staff consultation workshop
Student consultation workshop
HEI scoping of PW practices
Collected 13 case study examples
On-going work
Collecting 7 further case studies
Write final report with recommendations
Website development with case examples, videos & resources
Liaising with SPARQS
Siobhan?

7. Programme Lead Survey Results

8. Participants (N=38) School N = 38 School of Health and Life Sciences
50% (19)
School of Computing, Engineering & Built Environment
21% (8)
Glasgow School for Business & Society
GCU Institute for University to Business Education
3% (1)
GCU London
Academic Quality and Development

9. Programmes Level Number Undergraduate 21 Postgraduate 18
Doctoral programme 1
Shiv= survey results

10. Q. During your most recent Programme approval/review did you partner with students in the co-creation of the following?

11. Partnership Working in Programme Approval/Review

12. Student on Approval/Review Panel

13. Q. Outside of Programme Approval/Review have you ever partnered with students in the co- creation and/or delivery of the following?

14. Partnership Working Outside of Programme Approval/Review

15. Q. In your Programme have you used any of the following types of partnership activities for learning, teaching and assessment?

16. Partnership Working Activities

17. Q. Excluding dissertations/honours projects, have you ever partnered with students during research and scholarship using any of the following activities, e.g. knowledge exchange; consultancy, community, scholarly projects?

18. Research & Scholarly Activities*
* Excluding Hons Projects/ Dissertations

19. Q. Has your programme team partnered with students in the identification of staff training needs and/or development or delivery of staff CPD, i.e. partnership for staff professional development?

20. PW for Identifying Staff Training/ Development Needs or Delivery of Staff CPD

21. Staff Consensus Development Workshop

22. Q1. In what ways/during which activities can students and staff partner together in GCU?

23. Q1. Staff NGT Item Description % of group
Co-design L&T/module/curriculum resources, seminars/tutorials
45%
Design of assessment/rubrics and feedback
27%
Peer assessment/evaluation
18%
Work together on projects - e.g. website design
SSCG committee/programme board involvement
Co-write/present research at conferences etc.
Showcases of work - e.g. physical, social media
Shaping learning environment
Working with external partners (companies/3rd sector) - Industry/consultancy projects
Co-create programme review/approval materials
Develop marketing material

24. Q1. Student NGT Item Description % of group
Co-design L&T/module/curriculum resources, seminars/ tutorials
60%
Jointly review student feedback from surveys etc. and jointly develop action plans
Design of assessment/rubrics and feedback
40%
Policy development at GCU
Student panel members - quality events
Student/staff events
Working with external partners (companies/3rd sector) - Industry/consultancy projects
External (offsite) curricular or extra-curricular visits

25. Q2. What key factors would facilitate these partnership working activities taking place?

26. Q2. Staff NGT Item Description % of group
Staff and student training/expectations management
27%
Willingness to change
Templates/guides/"how to" resources
Increase staff feeling valued
Time (ring fenced)
18%
Policy that explicitly includes partnership
Culture that partnership is the norm
Mutual trust and respect: staff, students, management

27. Q2. Student NGT Item Description % of group
Incentivise staff/students with benefits of partnership working, e.g. PW award
80%
Create culture where it is expected
Better staff-student communication
60%
Willingness of participation
40%
Proactive leaders
Enhance Student Partnership Agreement
Clear definitions and parameters for partnership working - outlining benefits

28. Thank you for your participation!

29. Nominal Group Technique
Face to face, small group, consensus development method that follows three stages: ideas generation; group discussion and clarification; and individual ranking/scoring (Potter et al., 2004).
Rooted in co-production as was established in public sector, service user engagement settings (Fox, 1993)
Highly structured - increases reproducibility
Results in participants generating a larger number & higher quality of ideas than traditional focus groups
Enables enhanced confidentiality of responses and maximises each participant’s contribution
Enables the amalgamation of the results from nominal groups that are conducted consecutively and/or concurrently