1. Rhino Hunting: Meaningful Student Engagement in a Variety of Contexts Sally Walker, Head of Partnerships Gavin Tash, Senior Partnerships Manager

2. What does the title mean?

3. Really here in name only

4. What this session will do  Case Study- INTO UEA  Consider barriers to meaningful student engagement  Traditional and alternative solutions  Compare practice from institutions here today  Implications of Quality Code

5. INTO UEA  UEA partner for 10 years  Validated preparatory programmes for non native English speakers  Cover language and study skills  Large cohort of Asian students  Students progress to Level 4, Level 5 and PG taught programmes  Enter with range of IELTS scores- lowest 4.5 overall with 4.0 in subskills

6. What might be the barriers to effective engagement with INTO students?

7. Barriers to Engagement  Language  Short time at INTO  Cultural differences  Unfamiliarity with university committee and governance structures  Age/ immaturity  Intense nature of programme  Distinct groups of students

8. Traditional Methods  Sitting on Committees  Attendance on validation panels  Module evaluation  Staff Student Liaison Committee

9. Alternative Ideas  Key UEA staff attending Staff Student Liaison Committees  Briefing/ training students  Explaining UEA’s role and importance of student feedback  Specific student charter  Promoting results of student engagement

10. UEA’s FE Partners

11. What do you do? Some questions

12. Do your validation panels meet with students? A.Yes B.No C.Depends

13. Does a student sit on the panel? A.Yes B.No C.Depends

14. If a student sits on the Panel who briefs the student? A.Partner B.Awarding body C.Partner SU D.Awarding body SU E.No briefing

15. Do you have student representatives on your main partner committee (Joint Board, Partner Board etc) A.Yes B.No C.Depends

16. If you do, are you happy that students feel able to contribute freely? A.Yes B.No C.Depends

17. Do you as awarding bodies try to attend staff/student liaison meetings at your partners A.Yes B.No C.Depends

18. Do you as awarding body ever contact students directly for feedback? A.Yes B.No

19. If so, how do you do this? A.Questionnaire B.Survey C.Other

20. Where did we go for direction?

21. Chapter B5 Expectation Chapter B5 Higher education providers take deliberate steps to engage all students, individually and collectively, as partners in the assurance and enhancement of their educational experience.

22. Chapter B5 Indicators of Compliance Chapter B5 – Indicators Indicator 4 Higher education providers ensure that student representatives and staff have access to training and ongoing support to equip them to fulfil their roles in educational enhancement and quality assurance effectively. Indicator 5 Students and staff engage in evidence-based discussions based on the mutual sharing of information. Indicator 6 Staff and students to disseminate and jointly recognise the enhancements made to the student educational experience, and the efforts of students in achieving these successes. Indicator 7 The effectiveness of student engagement is monitored and reviewed at least annually, using pre-defined key performance indicators, and policies and processes enhanced where required.

23. How did we use it?

24. The QAA mapping exercise  Compliance  Potential for enhancement  Action  Review  Partner perspective  Themes for the Partnerships Office

25. What do our HE in FE Partners do?  Staff student liaison committees  Course committees  Student forum

26. What have UEA done?  Attend partner SSLCs/student forum where possible  Consider minutes of the above at Joint Board  Have student panel members on Institutional approval/reapproval  Have student panel members on validations and revalidations

27. Questions