1. Student Voice in Academic Audit Dr Jan Cameron Director Academic Quality Agency for New Zealand Universities May 2015

2. “The role of students in the quality assurance of higher education has become recognised, across Europe, as being both necessary and desirable.” www.enqa.eu/indirme/papers-and-reports/workshop-and- seminar/Student%20involvement.pdfwww.enqa.eu/indirme/papers-and-reports/workshop-and- seminar/Student%20involvement.pdf 2006

3. AQA Quality assurance and quality enhancement Audits enhancement-led not compliance-led. Audit findings as – Comment – Commendations (good practice) – Affirmations (validation) – Recommendations (room for improvement) Audit commendations feed into good practice data base.

4. Development of the Cycle 5 Framework Students involved in 2013 consultation - workshops The Framework: Teaching and Learning and Student Experience. Students are at the centre of the framework

5. The regulations of the European Association for Quality Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) encourage the involvement of students in the external quality assurance processes of its member agencies. The recently published Guidelines for national reviews of ENQA member agencies include students, alongside quality assurance experts, representatives of higher education institutions and other stakeholders as the proposed members of the panels which should evaluate the quality of the quality assurance agencies. A student member, proposed by the National Unions of Students in Europe (ESIB), will always be included in the expert panel of ENQA coordinated external reviews of member agencies. www.enqa.eu/indirme/papers-and-reports/workshop-and- seminar/Student%20involvement.pdfwww.enqa.eu/indirme/papers-and-reports/workshop-and- seminar/Student%20involvement.pdf 2006

6. Audit Process AQA has no student auditors. Why?

7. Audit Process Students invited to make submissions on the guideline statements. Students involved in University self- review. Students interviewed by panels. Students receive copy of final report.

8. Audit Process Students are interviewed by audit panels. Challenges: Small number Non-representative? Short interview time.

9. Do students believe audit panels get a fair impression of student experience, student engagement and student concerns?

10. Cycle 5 to date Four audits completed. “Findings” related to student voice.

11. The Guideline statements, in particular: 1.3 Student input to planning, policy and monitoring. 3.4 Programme reviews should include input from students. 4.1 Processes for enhancing student engagement. 4.3 Processes for providing feedback to students. 5.5 Processes for gaining feedback from students.

12. Two universities commended: The Panel commends the University and [the students’ association] on the wide-ranging and effective contribution made by students to the University’s planning, reviews, academic activity and services. The Panel commends the University for using systematic mechanisms for ensuring student input is sought, feedback given and information shared across all levels of the University. One affirmation on a review in train to enhance student input; currently input varies across campus. One comment “The Panel is satisfied that the University provides well for student input”. 1.3 Student input to planning, policy and monitoring.

13. 3.4 Programme reviews should include input from students. No CARs. Text indicates this is routine, for all four universities. No exceptionally good or poor practice identified.

14. 5.5 Processes for gaining feedback from students. Two recommendations : The Panel recommends that the University expedite the reviews of cross-institutional course and teaching surveys, paying attention to the weaknesses and strengths of the current systems and to prevailing good practice and institutional developments in student surveying both nationally and internationally. The Panel recommends that the University gives urgent attention to implementation of the system initiated in 2014 to require course outlines to include feedback to students regarding the outcomes and actions taken as a consequence of responses from course evaluations.

15. Class rep systems The Panel concluded that the class representative system is well used throughout the University. Although some students were vague about the role of class representatives, most students who were interviewed felt that for most courses they were effective and their voice was heard. The Panel heard from students that its extensive class representative system is “deep” … The hierarchical system of representation ensures there is a “genuine student voice” at all levels of the institution. Students who met with the Panel gave mixed assessments of the Class Representative system, some indicating that it is unevenly implemented and that not all staff respond constructively to their input.

16. What involvement do students have in university internal processes/ what involvement do students wish to have? Are class rep systems effective? How might students most effectively contribute to audit assessments by external panels? What are the challenges/ barriers? How might they be overcome? Discussion

17. Thank you.