The University recently asked for student feedback ahead of the policy going to the Students’ and Teaching Committee in mid-May. This was an opportunity to make sure student experiences are reflected before any decisions are made.

Here’s a summary of what the Group said, including what’s working well, and where changes are needed.

Positives

Evening teaching

• Teaching scheduled between 6pm–8pm is welcomed by parents, mature, and working students (specifically raised by an MA student).
• Related concern: Where buildings close at 8pm, students and staff report security encouraging early departures, creating pressure to hurry. Teaching that runs until 8pm leaves no time for questions, discussion, or informal support after sessions.

Limits on consecutive teaching

• Students were positive about the principle of no more than four hours of teaching in a row, provided teaching staff ensure adequate comfort and access breaks.

Worries and Concerns

Attendance after teaching has finished

• A student reported having classes timetabled after assignment deadlines or exams, despite no remaining teaching content. They were told they must attend to scan in, then leave.
• This was raised particularly by an international student concerned about meeting visa attendance requirements, despite having to travel to campus solely to register attendance.

Self-directed study and practical work

• Students on creative and practical courses raised concerns that self-directed studio/workshop time is not timetabled or considered.
• While formal teaching hours may be low, timetables do not reflect the actual time students are expected to be on campus to complete practical work and assignments.

Risk of increased daily intensity

• There is concern that already condensed courses may respond to the “no more than six hours of teaching in a day” guidance by adding additional hours or half day teaching blocks on other days, increasing overall intensity rather than improving balance.

Room changes and continuity

• Students are experiencing frequent room changes despite having the same cohort and tutor. For example, students may have two hours for one module in one room, followed immediately by another two-hour session with the same cohort in a different room.
• There is concern about whether the policy adequately considers the practical impact of room availability and movement between sessions.

Communication and accessibility

• Students raised significant concerns about how timetable changes are communicated, particularly where accessibility is affected (e.g. lifts not working).
• One student stated the University “has not acknowledged the impact of timetabling changes on the disabled community.”
• The policy’s tiered approach to communication responsibilities was described as unclear and confusing.

Terminology consistency

• In the Terminology section, students queried whether “may” should be included, as it is used throughout the document but not clearly defined.

Timetable release and reliability

• Students expressed scepticism about commitments to timetables being “released on time,” as this is not their current experience.
• Some timetables are released in short blocks, preventing students from planning for a full semester and, in some cases, only allowing visibility a few weeks in advance.
• When timetables are initially released, students report frequent changes and mixed messages about whether they are final.

Equality and inclusion

• Students asked whether an Equality Impact Assessment is being undertaken for this policy and raised concerns that equality and accessibility are not sufficiently embedded in the Timetable Design & Build process.
• Students recommended changing: “timetables may consider any additional needs requirements for staff and students” to: “timetables must consider any additional needs requirements.”

Ongoing feedback

• Students felt there was no reference to mechanisms for ongoing student feedback on timetabling once the policy is implemented.

Student experience and travel

• Students noted that nothing in the Student Experience section would prevent only one to two hours of teaching being scheduled on a single day, potentially increasing travel burden without academic benefit.

Assessment

• Students felt that Assessment should have its own section within the principles, rather than being included solely under Student Experience.

Activity types

• Students requested inclusion of Welcome Week, induction activities, the Students’ Union, and student-led groups and societies within Section 8.3 (Activity Types).

Questions raised

• Why is the draft policy not being shared with the Disability Student Advisory Policy Group for feedback?
• The draft references no more than six hours of teaching in a day. How will this be applied as more teaching moves to block models or condensed delivery across fewer days?

What happens next

This feedback has now been shared with the University and will inform discussions as the draft policy moves to the Students’ and Teaching Committee in mid-May.

Get involved

The Timetabling Action Group is open to all students who want to shape how timetabling works at the University.

If you’ve experienced issues with your timetable or want to help improve things for students, we’d encourage you to get involved. Your input directly informs the changes we push for.

Join the Timetabling Action Group and be part of improving the student experience.