Key Findings

Student representation and participation

• All TEOs had class/programme representatives or class leaders who represented other students in their classes and who were generally supported.
• Student representatives at class and programme level gathered views and ideas from their peers, most often about day-to-day teaching and learning programmes.
• In universities and ITPs, students who engaged at the class-representative level frequently had the opportunity to participate in higher levels of representation at the faculty committee and/or board levels.
• At these levels student representatives were able to have input into wider organisational policies that affected all students, but were not as well supported or resourced by organisations.
• While the university students were largely comfortable with this and able to fulfil their roles, those at ITPs required more support to enable them to contribute fully. In part this reflected the shorter time periods some of them spend in courses and subsequently in these higher-level roles.
• Recent legislative changes have led to two TEOs (an ITP and a university) establishing new structures, a student sub-committee to council at an ITP and a student forum at a university.
• These structures complemented current representative systems and provided a place for debate and discussion on issues that affect all students.
• Overall, staff were pleased with how these systems were operating in their initial stages, while students’ associations were more equivocal in their views.
• However, in both cases staff and students clearly saw that the systems had the potential for further positive evolution over time.

Student engagement

• TEOs collected the individual views of students through a range of mechanisms.
• In some cases, students in the universities and ITPs that took part in this research felt over-surveyed and were unsure about the extent to which changes were made as a result of the information gathered.
• Where students were told what had been done as a direct result of their feedback, they felt better about the surveys, suggesting that a closing of the feedback loop is important to students.
• When changes were evident, they felt listened to and encouraged to have continued input.
• One of the biggest challenges for TEOs is to get students engaged in representative systems and quality-enhancement procedures.
• Numerous reasons were offered for the lack of engagement, including the age and life stage of students.

Staff perceptions

• Staff at TEOs valued student contribution in different ways.
• Some viewed students as a customer/partner continuum and this impacted on the type of feedback that is sought and the ways in which organisations engage with their students to get this feedback.
• Staff at most organisations viewed students primarily as fee-paying customers but also saw the ‘students
  as partners’ model as an ideal, preferred or future state.
• Most thought their approaches were moving towards getting students to take a more active role in the development of quality teaching programmes, apart from one where staff and students were both of the view that there was already a full partnership approach in place.
• Seeing students as customers had the potential to constrain student voice, placing it in reactive rather than proactive mode.
• Where there were examples of true partnership in action, students made a significant contribution to quality enhancement at the class, faculty and committee level.
• This worked when students were perceived and treated as equal partners.

Key Recommendations

• Establish the partnership in which the student voice is to be heard.
• Legitimise the student voice.
• Establish clear roles for those delivering the student voice.
• Provide training for those delivering the student voice.
• Provide adequate resources for supporting the student voice.
• Hear and heed the student voice.