"The Governor View": The academic student experience

Advance HE Governors View: The academic student experience

The quality of the academic student experience is a key focus for governing bodies, encompassing not just teaching and learning but the myriad aspects of campus life that feed into students’ perceptions.

A recent report from the Higher Education Policy Institute and TechnologyOne, What Matters Most: 20 years of the student experience, analyses two decades worth of data from the the large Advance HE/HEPI Student Academic Experience Survey to uncover a number of trends that impact those perceptions.

A key change identified by the report is the fall in the proportion of students attending all their scheduled classes from 63 per cent in 2006 to 48 per cent in 2025. Total missed teaching sessions have doubled from 8 per cent of total timetabled hours to 16 per cent. Half of the students who missed contact time missed one-third of their weekly lectures and seminars.

Attendance decline is set against the backdrop of an increase in the proportion of students working in part time jobs, from about a third to two thirds.

According to the report, since the pandemic, all students who work, regardless of the number of hours, have larger attendance gaps than those who do not work. While the spread across the sector of lecture capture enables students to catch up online, giving working students more flexibility, the result is more missed classes.

This matters because students’ perceptions of value for money remain strongly tied to their learning experiences, teaching quality and sense of belonging. Students who are satisfied with their teaching have a stronger sense of belonging. Students who feel they belong on campus are significantly more likely to say their course provides “good” or “very good” value for money.

Conversely, students who do not feel as if they belong are much more likely to say their experience had not match their expectations – this factor alone explains 17 per cent of the likelihood of having a sub-par experience. 

For governors, then, it is important to have a finger on the pulse of their students’ perceptions of quality, and confidence in how their institutions procedures, processes and policies maximise quality and encourage a sense of belonging.

Creating opportunities to connect with the student body, over and above hearing the input of student representation on the board, is key, according to a recent Russell Group governor. 

“It makes a huge difference if a board has embedded into its annual timetable structured meetings with students,” he says. ”It is the single most interesting thing you can do as a board member - meeting groups of students. It I hard for board members to claim they understand their university if they don’t engage with students on a regular basis.” 

Examples given by governors of contact with the wider student body include group sessions with undergraduates who face mental health challenges, and forums with students concerned about teaching quality. 

A governor at a private institution mentioned a recent meeting with a group of postgraduate students where they “summarised their work in poster-style presentations and we got a good insight into what they were doing.”

One board member participated in a “multiple mini-interviews” style event, where students moved tables talking to groups of governors. 

“That works really well and is less intimidating for students,” said a governor who took part.

Governors also recommended faculty and student accommodation visits, or even holding a board meeting in a hall of residence.

“If you are open to chatting to students in these settings, it exposes governors to how they are thinking and feeling,” said a governor.

Student engagement opportunities were often arranged through a Student Union and close links with the student representative body are regarded as a positive.

At a new university in the South of England an arrangement where a board member is “twinned” with a student union representative has led to knowledge exchange in both directions.

“These arrangements are really commendable and add value,” said a board member. “We’ve made a lot of investment into the student union over the years, and we do that because their work is essential and because of the competition: if it looks good at another university, it better look good here.”

Boards have prioritised some aspects of the student experience over others in recent years, often driven by regulatory requirements.

A governor with experience on two boards highlighted student mental health and wellbeing as a focus of governance time and resources, following Office for Students (OfS) directives from about 2019.

Tackling the unexplained differences in degree attainment across different groups has been an area of board attention at one Russell Group institution since the OfS set targets in 2018.

Similarly, the governor of an institution in the south of England said that the board had received papers on the experiences and outcomes for particular groups of students, including a recent session on trans students.

At another institution, post-Covid cost of living concerns have been discussed frequently, with “some board members being shocked to find the university is running a food bank”.

Underpinning governors understanding of the student experience is good data. Governing boards depend on quality, up to date and timely metrics, and on executives that are receptive to requests for data sets.

The National Student Survey is seen as an essential barometer of student perceptions and the results are studied closely by boards. 

“We take a lot of notice, and pride, in the NSS,” said one governor. “We spend a lot of time on it and go into detail: for instance, we consider which faculties, and even courses, students give positive and negative feedback on. We take it very seriously.”

The university also conducts its own internal student surveys to dig down more deeply.

Data and feedback from the executive on the level and nature of student complaints, both internally and those passed to the Office of the Independent Adjudicator, can also highlight trends and areas of concern.

At some institutions, the use of predictive analytics is being explored - identifying students who are more at risk of non-engagement, tracking attendance and pinpointing “red flag” points in the student cycle, such as their first module failure. 

One governor indicated that datasets showing attendance and/or engagement levels would be of interest to the board.

“Metrics like that have never been presented to us,” he said. “That doesn’t mean the data doesn’t exist, but we’ve never seen it.”

Analysis comparing institutional performance against baselines, national averages and, where possible, competitor institutions was common and regarded as helpful.

Data is generally presented to full boards in an annual cycle. Alongside this, some committees are more concerned with the student experience than others. 

Data and report submissions required by the regulator often go through the board first, such as the access and participation plan which has to be signed off by governors.

“That is an important document in relation to how the student experience is felt by different groups and lays out very clearly the risks and steps being taken by us to address them,” said one governor. “It also has targets so governors can check where progress is being made”.

While data is central to the mission and a necessary tool in governance oversight, it is often regarded as not sufficient on its own to provide a complete picture.

“We’ve got metrics coming out of our ears,” said one governor. “It has to be supplemented by qualitative information to really get under the skin of the issue. Metrics don’t capture everything.”

Regular updates to the governing board from the academic board and the pro-vice chancellor for teaching and learning, renamed “PVC for the student experience” at some institutions, provide context to the data.

Some institutions are creating new committees with a wider student experience remit. At one university in the North of England, a new body monitors student success across the NSS, the APP, OfS B3 conditions, graduate outcomes, the TEF and educational gain.

“It provides high-level assurance, via the academic board, to us,” said a governor. “It is not just about teaching, it is about fostering student engagement, representation and success in its widest sense.”

Evidence has been emerging in recent years about how students’ sense of belonging feeds into positive outcomes and the HEPI report adds to the research.

One governor points out that some students who would not show up on engagement data - for instance through attendance tracking - may simply be engaging in a different way, by accessing online teaching and lectures.

Governors are increasingly aware that they must take account of the risks and opportunities for district groups of students, for instance international and commuter students, and to “put to the executive sharp questions, informed by the data and the qualitative stories”.

“A university is meant to be a community not just a place where you get a qualification based on facts shoved down your throat,” said one governor. “There are periods in the student lifecycle where it is really important for universities to do a good job – a really good induction and freshers week, friendly active clubs and societies, student accommodation where it is easy to meet people and the opportunity for second chances, for instance refreshers weeks.”

But students have their part to play in getting the most out of their experience, albeit in the more challenging context of the rise in part-time work and the cost-of-living hikes. 

“It is no good students saying they don’t feel they belong if they are spending their whole time sitting in their bedrooms on social media,” said a governor who has experience on two higher education boards. “Universities need to put on good events and do all they can to support students’ academic progress, wellbeing and resilience, but students need to meet them halfway by attending and getting stuck in.”