Training the University in Student Voice: Findings from the UK Sector Audit

This spring, the UK Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) published the sector report, The Audit of Representation and Student Voice Practice, led by the University of Westminster and a consortium of universities.

The study found wide variation in course-level evaluations and student representation practice. It also uncovered differences in how various institutions recognise student representatives' time (such as payment and rewards), differing approaches to appointment (from election to selection), and, for module or course evaluations, a spread in the number of surveys deployed each year.

The report engaged 72 UK providers which has prioritised student voice for 20 years, following support by national policy and regulation. The report highlights several best-practice case studies from institutions, as well as evidence of the training required by bodies such as Students' Unions to support thousands of students each year in becoming student representatives.

However, the study also highlighted an area for development that is not being implemented at many institutions: the training of the university and its staff. Has this gap led to a lack of support for the student voice across campuses? What can be done to

This blog will unpack what this could look like in practice.

What Are the Findings Around Training Student Representatives?

Following a student's appointment as a course-, department-, or university-level representative, many of those selected undergo substantial training. Often organised by the Students' Union, this training may include information regarding university policy, how different committees are run, and methods to engage in the wider student body to gain feedback to take to staff.

In recent years, these training initiatives have developed further, particularly in settings where student co-chairs of meetings are appointed, where training can include topics such as how to manage meeting agendas, how to deal with difficult conversations, and how to look beyond one student's feedback story to understand the wider representative student body.

Training in these complex areas of expertise is seen as critical to the success of student voice in universities. The QAA audit found that 100% of 78 institutional respondents reported course-level representation and 82.05% reported course or module-level feedback surveys. But there's wide variation in how institutions appoint representatives: 54% use elections, 26% use self-nomination without voting, and 12% use applications with selection.

That variation makes training essential, because staff and student representatives need a shared understanding of how student voice works in practice.

What Does the QAA Report Say About Staff Training for Student Voice Activities?

Interestingly, at most universities, there is often no parallel training for staff to ensure these student voice processes run smoothly beyond a 'You said, we did' form of student voice feedback mechanism.

These trainings could serve as a practical foundation, outlining how student voice works at that provider, when meetings are held, and how their representatives are trained, which could be a great starting point. But they could go further, to include topics such as:

• Managing disagreement and handling tough topics (such as feedback that causes offense)
• Balancing power dynamics between the marker and the fee-paying studens
• How to encourage productive discussions as opposed to transactional opinion giving

A dialogue relies on both parties, and the QAA audit shows why staff training matters. The report found that 69.23% of providers have more than one level of student representation, while 30.77% report only course-level representation. It also found that responsibility for student voice is spread across different roles, including student voice, student representation, engagement, community, and partnership

What Do the Findings Say About Making Meetings Student-Centred?

The UK Sector Audit made clear that universities are now practicing student voice through representatives across committee structures.

At the course level, training for the university stands for all levels of meeting, not just instances where the on-the-ground Course Leader is engaging with course representatives. Training universities to run student-centred meetings is critical if students are to represent student views effectively and if universities are to carry out meaningful consultation and co-design.

Practice such as:

• Ensuring student-related items are top of the agenda, to engage students' contributions from start
• Accessible papers and discussions to include newer members (such as expanded acronyms and explaining previously assumed knowledge)
• Dedicated Student Representative reports can all increase the effectiveness of student engagement in governance

Training for Chairs of University committees often exists, but does this include a focus on student voice? A recent study from McStravock unpacked this for Boards of Governors, where practices such as student representatives having a buddy/mentor on the committee increased the effectiveness of student voice on that committee.

What is the University Policy for Baseline Practice?

Good practice will exist across the sector relating to the discussions above, but often good practice is fragile, being reliant on individual champions. When aspiring to establish university-wide best practices, it is important to embed these practices in policy.

Already many universities formalise policies on student voice expectations in policy, such as Academic Handbook for Taught Degrees or even dedicated Student Voice Policies. These policies go beyond strictly "student experience strategies" to detail how meetings are conducted, the need for annual training, and the individuals responsible for meeting expectations.

Without elements being set in stone, there is a risk that a one-off project in 2026 is not repeated, and following turnover of staff, messages can be forgotten, and other agendas can lead to practice being de-prioritised in the future.

Whose Job is it to Take Responsibility for Staff Training and Write Policy?

Historically, students' unions have held ownership over facilitating and supporting student voice, as the democratic on-campus union surely most appropriate for such activity. But when universities are so heavily assessed in the UK for their student voice practice, such as by the UK National Student Survey asking questions on the topic which feeds into university rankings, perhaps this is more urgent?

Some universities have "taken ground" in this area, appointing student voice/engagement teams to work with the students' union on this, and many will now hold policies. It can be a difficult discussion to have, but when one assesses their institution's support for other development areas such as "assessment and feedback," which holds an equal stake in national ranks, it is a topic worthy of discussion.

Especially if successful and meaningful student voice is required for the modern university.

Learn more about how Explorance is helping UK universities make the most out of their student voice analysis across campus, including through their NSS comments.