Student feedback Incentives Fund - case study

Staff-student partnership

Background and context

  • What was the purpose of the staff-student partnership activity?

To increase student voice/engagement in non-academic change initiatives, especially those led by professional service units, which do not have as much visibility in student representative structures as academic Schools.

  • Who was involved (roles, departments, student groups)?

Academic Policy Officer (Digital & Student Experience), Students’ Association Academic Representation Co-ordinator, Students’ Association Sabbatical Officers (including PGR president), Professional service unit representatives (Director/Assistant Director level), Director of Student Experience, Student Experience Strategic Management Group

  • What was the setting (e.g., course, project, initiative, event)?

Initiative – the Education & Student Experience team received a lump sum of funding from Development which was earmarked for student experience projects. Two thirds of this funding was put into the creation of the Student Activities Fund. It was agreed that the remaining third should be used to increase student voice and engagement in feedback activities.

Goals and planning

  • What were the intended goals or outcomes of the activity?

To increase student voice and engagement in feedback activities, especially for non-academic aspects of the student experience, where there is often less formal representation.

  • How were these goals developed and agreed upon?

This was discussed by the Director of Student Experience and a group of incoming sabbatical officers in September 2023. The sabbatical officers were receptive to the suggestion of a scheme to increase student voice, and to use the funding to distribute vouchers to students for taking part in non-academic feedback activities.

  • What planning or preparation was involved?

Desk-based research was undertaken by the APO (Digital & Student Experience) on existing ‘student voice’ or ‘student experience’ panels at a range of UK and European universities. A summary paper, outlining potential options for developing a similar structure at St Andrews, was presented at a meeting of the Student Experience Strategic Management Group for discussion and feedback. Robust discussion – including significant student opposition – led to further opportunities for refining the proposal over the course of an academic year, before culminating in a scheme that was approved by SESMG.

The activity in action

  • What did the partnership look like in practice? How were responsibilities shared between staff and students?

The majority of the work of the initiative – consultations, drafting, incorporating feedback, publication, and dealing with enquiries from end users – was carried out by the APO and the Students’ Association Academic Representation Coordinator. The sabbatical officers and student members of SESMG provided verbal comments and feedback on proposals in committee, and reviewed draft plans and guidance for the scheme.

  • What methods or tools were used to support collaboration?

Teams and OneDrive were the primary tools for collaboration, in addition to in-person consultation meetings. Both the APO and the ARC met with sabbatical officers to discuss concerns and potential solutions. The APO also consulted with professional service colleagues to better understand their needs and the challenges faced re: student feedback to date.

Outcomes and impact

  • What were the key outcomes or achievements?

The main achievements were:
1. A fund of £3000p.a. available to professional service units for student feedback activities (NB webpage states £2500, but there is a discretionary £500 available)
2. A set of guidance documents outlining appropriate incentives for different feedback activities, and providing advice on engaging with students.

  • How did the activity benefit students, staff, or the wider community?

Professional service units were able, in the fund’s first year of operation, to successfully recruit students to provide feedback on a wide range of projects, from replacement of the Library’s catalogue system, to the purchase of new chairs and furniture for study spaces, to participation in the University’s institutional review (TQER). Students were fairly compensated for their time and efforts in providing feedback.

  • Were there any unexpected results?

The guidance on engaging with students has been popular outwith the intended audience – it has been shared with and requested by colleagues in Schools as well as service units.

Reflections and learning

  • What worked well in the partnership?

The APO and the ARC developed a very strong working relationship and were able to use this to work more effectively with both staff and students alike, each harnessing pre-existing relationships in the staff and students’ association communities, respectively. By taking on board extensive feedback from both sides, they were able to refine the proposal, process, and guidance documents into a coherent whole that met the needs and requirements of all parties.

  • What challenges did you face, and how were they addressed?

The initial research-based paper by the APO received very strong opposition from sabbatical officers on SESMG, who refused to endorse the development of a student experience panel due to concerns of undermining representative structures. A second, significantly revised proposal (developed between the APO and the ARC) for a more limited vouchers-for-feedback scheme was also vocally opposed, with concerns about fairness for elected (and unpaid) representatives.

Following this second round of rejection, the APO and ARC undertook a series of 1:1 consultation meetings with sabbatical officers to understand their concerns and work through options that might be acceptable. The APO and ARC also met with a colleague at the University of Edinburgh who administers the Student Experience panel system there. This approach resulted in the development of a robust set of guidance to accompany the Fund, and the package was finally endorsed unanimously by SESMG, with particular praise from the sabbatical officers for the co-creation process.

  • What did you learn from the experience?

Conversations with student representatives should begin at the ideation stage of a project, and continue throughout, ideally with the same representatives – one of the reasons for the unexpected pushback at the paper stage was that the initial ideation was discussed with a different group of sabbatical officers than those who were SESMG board members.

It is important not to assume that just because something has been a success at other institutions, it will be simple to replicate.

Looking ahead

  • How has this activity influenced future work or thinking?

The incentives fund has changed the way that professional services seek to engage students in feedback activities – and its success has highlighted the need for more such activities.

The guidance documents have had a wider reach than originally intended; they have been requested and used by a number of service units and Schools even when not making a funding bid.

  • What advice would you give to others starting a similar partnership?

Leverage existing relationships – in the APO’s case, with professional services leaders; in the ARC’s case, with sabbatical officers – to get everyone having a conversation as early as possible.

Jennifer Norris – Education and Student Experience