4.2 Data-driven and participatory development of degree programmes
The development of degree programmes, teaching and guidance is based on data and engagement
The audit found that LUT University demonstrates a strong culture of engagement and collaboration in the development of education, teaching, and guidance. Students, staff, employers, and external stakeholders all contribute to programme review and enhancement activities through a variety of formal and informal mechanisms. Students actively participate in programme development through student guilds, feedback systems, representation on committees, and engagement in programme annual review workshops. Student guild representatives play an important role in collecting and summarising feedback from students and contributing to programme enhancement discussions.
Examples identified during the audit included regular programme meetings involving student representatives and staff, where feedback is reviewed collaboratively and actions are discussed. Students consistently reported that staff were approachable, responsive, and supportive. The university employs a broad range of feedback and monitoring mechanisms, including course feedback questionnaires, annual student surveys, graduate surveys, programme statistics, progression data, and annual review workshops.
The Annual Internal Assessment and Quality Workshops represent an important institutional mechanism for programme review and enhancement. These workshops support collaborative reflection on programme performance, curriculum alignment, assessment, workload distribution, and student feedback. The audit also identified strong examples of collaborative teaching culture and collegial engagement among staff. Staff described a supportive environment where teachers share pedagogical practices, learn from each other, and engage with teaching development initiatives.
The university also demonstrates strong engagement with labour market stakeholders and employers. Programme design and review processes are informed by external consultation, and many programmes incorporate industry-linked learning activities, projects, and professional engagement opportunities. Career Services provides a broad range of supports for students, including workshops, career counselling, job portals, recruitment events, and work-life preparation activities. Staff are encouraged to integrate work-life perspectives into teaching and curriculum design. However, despite the broad range of engagement mechanisms, the audit identified some concerns regarding the consistency, monitoring, and evaluation of these processes.
The audit team found that participation and engagement in the annual quality workshops vary considerably between programmes and schools. In several areas, processes rely heavily on local initiative, informal practices, or the commitment of individual staff. The university places significant reliance on student feedback as a primary mechanism for evaluating teaching quality and programme effectiveness. While student feedback is clearly valued and actively used within many programmes, the audit team identified, as mentioned above, concerns regarding low response rates and the absence of systematic evaluation of the reliability and statistical significance of survey data. The Self-Assessment Report itself acknowledges response rate challenges and recognises that lower response rates may disproportionately capture negative experiences.
The audit team also found that while the university places strong emphasis on constructive alignment and pedagogical quality, there is limited systematic evaluation of how effectively learning outcomes, teaching approaches, and assessments are aligned within individual modules and programmes.