Edinburgh principals summoned before SRC

In an unprecedented public response to student concern over poor academic feedback, the vice principals of the University of Edinburgh were hauled before the Student Representative Council (SRC) meeting last week.

The university was rated the worst in the UK for feedback in the recent National Student Survey (NSS) measuring satisfaction.

The attendance of the vice principals at the SRC emphasised how seriously the matter is being taken at the highest levels, and highlighted official concern for the university’s reputation.

Head of Social and Political Studies, Professor Anthony Good said: “It’s a big issue because it’s embarrassing to be in this position. The reputation of the University is at stake.”

He declared that it is of the utmost importance that the problem is addressed quickly and effectively.

At the SRC meeting the vice principals focussed on the importance of a dialogue between staff and students. The staff, they said, must know immediately when feedback is unsatisfactory.

Professor Jeff Haywood, head of Information Services, told the SRC: “We need you to push to help us do what we need to do.”

The Journal was invited by Guy Bromley, vice president of academic affairs at the Edinburgh University Student Association (EUSA), to attend a meeting with student class representatives before the SRC. It was clear that representatives were mounting pressure on the schools and are intent on voicing the concerns of students.

Their initiatives included arranging cross-department meetings to allow the comparison of successful feedback approaches and submitting informal student surveys.

A survey arranged by students in the Finance Department showed that 50 per cent of students felt that their course was too difficult. The results of the survey have been sent to course organisers.

Conversely, one of the problems being addressed is that opportunities to collect individual feedback are not being taken up by students. Last year the School of Social and Political Studies allowed non-honours students to go through their exam scripts with a tutor; however, very few took up this opportunity.

Professor Good is puzzled by this: “We introduced these initiatives as a result of student pressure but the measures we have taken so far clearly haven’t worked."

The vice principals reinforced this sentiment, saying: “We need to work with student representatives to find out why these opportunities aren’t always taken up, what can be done to make contact and collect feedback and why some possibilities are taken up more readily than others."

The vice principals and Professor Good were both strongly opposed to the idea that apathy amongst students is to blame for unsuccessful measures to improve feedback. However, they encouraged students to take the initiative in approaching tutors and pointed out that “there is responsibility on both sides.”

Students approached by The Journal have claimed that they are actively seeking out feedback. Douglas Campbell, a second-year Law student said: “I just get a mark and a comment [as feedback], but if I’ve got a problem, my tutors are very approachable.”

However, complaints were still being lodged at the SRC about the lack of feedback on exam papers at the time of the meeting. Many departments do not offer students the chance to recoup their papers.

The English Literature department destroys all exam papers after three months. A lecturer in the department told The Journal: “I can understand that though I don't get paid anything in my salary for marking per script it's just part of the job.”

He said that advice was available from course organisers, tutors, the director of studies system and dissertation supervisors.

Detractors continue to blame a lack in university funding alongside the poor feedback results.

It was suggested at the SRC that it is the less confident, under-achieving students who suffer most from a lack of feedback. The vice prinicpals were told that the university should actively seek out under performing students and offer feedback for improvement.

Student Thomas Graham suggested the problem was related to the imbalance of research over teaching at the University of Edinburgh. Professor April McMahon, Head of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, disagreed: “Research and teaching are not antithetical. When I was at university I remember being inspired by teachers who were often very good researchers."

She later added: “In your shoes, we’d rather be taught by an academic who wrote the key book or article on a subject, than by someone who doesn’t have such a strong research reputation.

"It is important that we value both teaching and research, and that we take excellence in both into account in staff appraisal and in considering cases for promotion.”

However, students have complained that research-orientated tutors are often in

In an unprecedented public response to student concern over poor academic feedback, the vice principals of the University of Edinburgh were hauled before the Student Representative Council (SRC) meeting last week.

The university was rated the worst in the UK for feedback in the recent National Student Survey (NSS) measuring satisfaction.

The attendance of the vice principals at the SRC emphasised how seriously the matter is being taken at the highest levels, and highlighted official concern for the university’s reputation.

Head of Social and Political Studies, Professor Anthony Good said: “It’s a big issue because it’s embarrassing to be in this position. The reputation of the University is at stake.”

He declared that it is of the utmost importance that the problem is addressed quickly and effectively.

At the SRC meeting the vice principals focussed on the importance of a dialogue between staff and students. The staff, they said, must know immediately when feedback is unsatisfactory.

Professor Jeff Haywood, head of Information Services, told the SRC: “We need you to push to help us do what we need to do.”

The Journal was invited by Guy Bromley, vice president of academic affairs at the Edinburgh University Student Association (EUSA), to attend a meeting with student class representatives before the SRC. It was clear that representatives were mounting pressure on the schools and are intent on voicing the concerns of students.

Their initiatives included arranging cross-department meetings to allow the comparison of successful feedback approaches and submitting informal student surveys.

A survey arranged by students in the Finance Department showed that 50 per cent of students felt that their course was too difficult. The results of the survey have been sent to course organisers.

Conversely, one of the problems being addressed is that opportunities to collect individual feedback are not being taken up by students. Last year the School of Social and Political Studies allowed non-honours students to go through their exam scripts with a tutor; however, very few took up this opportunity.

Professor Good is puzzled by this: “We introduced these initiatives as a result of student pressure but the measures we have taken so far clearly haven’t worked."

The vice principals reinforced this sentiment, saying: “We need to work with student representatives to find out why these opportunities aren’t always taken up, what can be done to make contact and collect feedback and why some possibilities are taken up more readily than others."

The vice principals and Professor Good were both strongly opposed to the idea that apathy amongst students is to blame for unsuccessful measures to improve feedback. However, they encouraged students to take the initiative in approaching tutors and pointed out that “there is responsibility on both sides.”

Students approached by The Journal have claimed that they are actively seeking out feedback. Douglas Campbell, a second-year Law student said: “I just get a mark and a comment [as feedback], but if I’ve got a problem, my tutors are very approachable.”

However, complaints were still being lodged at the SRC about the lack of feedback on exam papers at the time of the meeting. Many departments do not offer students the chance to recoup their papers.

The English Literature department destroys all exam papers after three months. A lecturer in the department told The Journal: “I can understand that though I don't get paid anything in my salary for marking per script it's just part of the job.”

He said that advice was available from course organisers, tutors, the director of studies system and dissertation supervisors.

Detractors continue to blame a lack in university funding alongside the poor feedback results.

It was suggested at the SRC that it is the less confident, under-achieving students who suffer most from a lack of feedback. The vice prinicpals were told that the university should actively seek out under performing students and offer feedback for improvement.

Student Thomas Graham suggested the problem was related to the imbalance of research over teaching at the University of Edinburgh. Professor April McMahon, Head of the College of Humanities and Social Sciences, disagreed: “Research and teaching are not antithetical. When I was at university I remember being inspired by teachers who were often very good researchers."

She later added: “In your shoes, we’d rather be taught by an academic who wrote the key book or article on a subject, than by someone who doesn’t have such a strong research reputation.

"It is important that we value both teaching and research, and that we take excellence in both into account in staff appraisal and in considering cases for promotion.”

However, students have complained that research-orientated tutors are often incomprehensible in a lecture hall environment and that undergraduates are looked down upon. It was suggested that more rigorous teacher training and monitoring should be emplaced.

Following the SRC meeting a session was held of the Senatus Academicus – the most senior academic committee which meets five times a year to discuss teaching, disciplinary and research issues.

Unusually, the Senate was devoted to the single issue of poor feedback. The vice principals had pushed for feedback plans to be top of the agenda and each of the 21 Heads of School were asked to present evidence on their moves to improve feedback.

Adam Ramsay, Edinburgh University Students' Association (EUSA) president, attended the meeting and was pleased with the outcome. He said: “The matter is being taken very seriously. As well as structural changes, little tricks were suggested to improve feedback."

The Head of Informatics was absent from the Senate meeting but presented his ideas through a video recording to introduce an initiative on video feedback, which would see tutors posting comments on marked papers as video segments on the internet.

The vice principals will also be attending the EUSA Annual General Meeting on Wednesday 12 November.

comprehensible in a lecture hall environment and that undergraduates are looked down upon. It was suggested that more rigorous teacher training and monitoring should be emplaced.

Following the SRC meeting a session was held of the Senatus Academicus – the most senior academic committee which meets five times a year to discuss teaching, disciplinary and research issues.

Unusually, the Senate was devoted to the single issue of poor feedback. The vice principals had pushed for feedback plans to be top of the agenda and each of the 21 Heads of School were asked to present evidence on their moves to improve feedback.

Adam Ramsay, Edinburgh University Students' Association (EUSA) president, attended the meeting and was pleased with the outcome. He said: “The matter is being taken very seriously. As well as structural changes, little tricks were suggested to improve feedback."

The Head of Informatics was absent from the Senate meeting but presented his ideas through a video recording to introduce an initiative on video feedback, which would see tutors posting comments on marked papers as video segments on the internet.

The vice principals will also be attending the EUSA Annual General Meeting on Wednesday 12 November.