The past year has been an absolute flurry of new and shiny standpoints under our even newer and shinier SUmmit model – and a LOT have been been for Education. From writing the briefing papers, to presenting to our student leaders, and chasing them up afterwards – here is what you (might’ve !) missed from me in SUmmit this year

 

Engagement monitoring

The standpoint

The University must continue to constantly seek student feedback on engagement monitoring and data collection

 

The background

Engagement monitoring in its current form was first integrated into the University in about March 2020, as a way to ensure students were still engaging with their studies when they went remote due to COVID.

The possible expansion of this was brought to Academic Council way back in February 2022, and the University reapproached the SU with the view to expand the provision of engagement monitoring with a specific focus on using this to help student welfare.

It is key to know that as of October 2024, the scope was specifically limited to engagement monitoring (meaning things like Panopto and moodle log-ins), and this no longer included elements of attendance monitoring (such as lecture attendance) due to student feedback.

 

The progress

Student consultation was gathered from the SU, Senate, the undergraduate Academic Exec, Academic Council, faculty forums, SUmmit, and an academic rep focus group. This was then passed on to Ben Goose, who oversees the project.

Overall, feedback was quite negative – students expressed concerns for how their data may be used and who can see it (e.g., can students who teach see it?), gamification causing wellbeing issues, and lack of reliability (e.g., SafeZone having faulty GPS in some areas of campus). Some positive comments were also recorded, such as making the university experience equitable between home and international students (as the latter are monitored due to visa rules), ability to use this to boost engagement or otherwise boycott lecturers who weren’t engaging, and appreciation for the wellbeing lens.

 

As this was a scoping exercise, we have a clear definition of engagement vs attendance monitoring, but no specific examples of what would be monitored have been provided, as this has not yet been determined or put in a plan. Nonetheless, student input into what is included has been considered, and will continue to be considered.

 

Next steps

Currently, it seems there has been no further progress on engagement monitoring. When this work resumes, the Education Officer will

• Organise a Q&A with the University and students to provide context and provide a space for questions on engagement monitoring
• Further pursue student insight – both through student leaders and the wider student body through open events
• Provide a clear list of what data will be collected and how this will be used.

 

Late submissions policy / IMC and extension policies and processes

Due to similar/overlapping discussion, I’ve lumped these two together.

The standpoint

The University should prioritise student welfare and academic equity with a standardised response to late submission of assessment.

 

The SU believes that the University should amend its IMC and extension policies and processes and standardise these across departments in accordance with its EDI Commitments.

 

The background

Currently, there is major variation in IMC and extension processes. As per QA16 (a document that outlines assessment, marking, and feedback practices, rules etc), section 8 highlights that

• Procedures and expectations apply of a unit basis (so each unit can have a different way of applying for an extension, what is valid, and for how long)
• Departments, faculties, or the School can set the length of extensions, including maximum lengths (so your extension length for the same reason can vary dependent on your subject)
• Students request extensions via the procedure published by the department, faculty, or School (meaning HOW you apply for extensions e.g., via app, form, or email, varies across the University)
• Students must submit an extension request prior to the original deadline (but we know there is anecdotal evidence of retrospective extensions)
• Departments will notify students what usually doesn’t permit an extension (but the way this happens vary, and can be more strict or lenient dependent on department)

 

The progress

Standardisation of extension policies and a review of IMCs has been undertaken as a larger piece of work under the inclusive education umbrella.

 

Lecture recordings

 

The standpoint

The SU believes that lecture recordings should be mandatory for all taught content and must meet a consistent and accessible standard, ensuring they are clear, promptly available, and retained throughout the course duration.

 

The background

Lecture recordings have repeatedly been featured as a student issue in the Top 10 – in 23/24, 20/21, and 14/15.

Previous concerns from academic staff regarding lecture recordings have included:

• Difficulties with the technology/needing training to record effectively,

• Intellectual property rights,

• Some content not being appropriate e.g. student sharing lived experiences in lectures or debating controversial topics,

• Whether recordings would be used as part of probationary or performance management processes,

• Students sharing recordings/clips of recordings on social media.

 

The progress

Current work on lecture recordings is focused via an inclusive education policy lens – and as such is included under the inclusive education work umbrella. This may cover aspects such as speed of recording release, and how long lecture recordings are available.

 

A lil while ago I put out a student facing version of the lecture recording policy so students can understand their rights/alternatives at a glance.

Evidence of poor camera quality, projectors blocking whiteboards etc was submitted to Education Advisory Board, and DDAT immediately fixed issues that could be, and was granted remit to investigate all lecture rooms on campus to identify further issues.

 

Next steps

DDAT is set to return to Education Advisory Board with an audit of recording issues, and budget/timeline needed for these changes to be enacted.