University of Nottingham Students Union

University of Nottingham Students’ Union

Hannah Brown, Brand and Insight Ambassador

Insight Team October 2016

University of Nottingham Students Union

Welcome Volunteer 2016 Feedback Report

Report Summary...... 2

Introduction...... 3

Main Analysis...... 4

Conclusion...... 30

Report Summary

The survey addressed 6 key areas of Welcome Week in relation to the role of the student volunteers, including:

1. The Application Process (Question 1)
2. Training (Questions 6, 10, 12, 13 and 17)
3. Mentor Welfare (Question 16)
4. Communication (Questions 7 and 11)
5. Frequently Asked Questions (Questions 8 and 15)
6. Events (Question 14)

The report saw replies to the 6 areas of welcome week offer a critical response to some of the main components of the week’s organisation. Across these areas, certain responses addressing the welfare of mentors and the practical organisation of the week arose repeatedly. This became a significant area of focus for respondents, as they offered ways in which volunteer’s knowledge of the practicalities of the week could be improved through the use of training.

The survey also allowed an insight into the relationship between Welcome Week student leaders, such as the Lead Mentors and Committee, and the Welcome Mentor volunteers. This raised some less widespread but important issues, specifically on the side of the Welcome Mentors, who felt the relationship between leadership and volunteers could be improved.

Another significant area of comment was the events hosted during Welcome Week, and how they could have suited the students better. Hearing these responses from student volunteers allows an insight into student responses to the week on a closer level, and therefore the responses in this area are valuable.

Generally, Welcome Volunteers were positive about the week, the training they received and the events which took place. As the survey was structured in a way which opened it up for written comment, respondents offered a good variety of suggestions for change, summarised within the report.

Introduction

A total of 61 Welcome Week volunteers responded to the feedback survey, which questioned them on various topics to do with Welcome Week 2016, distributed between 25th September 2016 and the 24th October 2016. It should be noted that this is less than half of the total group of 180 student volunteers, and therefore the responses found through the survey are not necessarily representative of the entire group. However, the frequency of certain responses amongst the comments show that certain things were widely felt within the group, and therefore these can be taken as indicative of a general response to the questions posed.

The survey covered a variety of topics, which can be split into 6 main areas:

• The application process
• Training
• Mentor Welfare
• Communication
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Events

Some of the questions gave multiple choice answer options, whereas some required longer answer responses. Where this is the case, the results have been summarised in short paragraphs, prioritised by how frequently students responded with similar comments.

The analysis helps to identify the areas which succeeded in Welcome Week 2016, and the areas in which there could be improvement. This report focuses mainly on the critical commentary provided by the survey, in order to enable change and growth from the results.

Main Analysis

Q1) In order to secure your Welcome position, you were asked to apply and interview for the role. If you have any ideas for how the application and interview process can be improved, please jot them down here.

27 respondents out of 61 responded to this question. The comments saw some topics re-occur, which are highlighted below, with the topics that occurred most frequently listed first:

Interviews and application questions

- Panel

On more than one occasion, commenters suggested that the interview panel should be made up of more people from the committee last year. It was also suggested that lead mentors were included in the interview process, so that they can understand the demands and development of the team. A comment raised that more than one person should read and screen applications, in order to reduce the possibility of bias.

- Process

It was commented that there should be a section of the interview that establishes the confidence of applicants when talking to new people, and dealing with new situations. A suggestion was made that this could be done through a role-play section of the interview, where the applicant is asked to respond to a potential situation. It was also suggested that a reference might be asked for from candidates, in order to establish their suitability for the role.

Multiple respondents raised that more notice should be given for the dates and times of interviews, to enable applicants to arrange plans and availability.

- Amount of Interviews

It was raised that more students should be given the opportunity to interview, as many were rejected at the first stage due to the quality of their written responses, when they might have been very suitable.
Better Understanding

A number of respondents suggested that a better understanding of the demands of the week was necessary. This mostly came in response to the time demands of the week, and the high level of commitment necessary. Suggestions were made that a timetable of the week should be established further in advance, so that mentors know when their commitment is required and the time given can be evenly spread across all mentors. It was highlighted that potentially, the application should have an area where applicants can outline what other commitments they have in Welcome Week, in order to establish how much time they are going to be able to give.
It was suggested that a possible response to this lack of understanding could be producing an FAQ sheet with information given by previous mentors, so that applicants understand first-hand the demands of the role.

Ratio of Male to Female Mentors

It was repeatedly suggested that the ratio of male to female mentors should be more even, as in some halls there was a wide disparity, and this caused some issues.

Advertising

Repeated comments were made suggesting that advertising for the role should be more comprehensive and widespread, as lack of coverage meant that a lot of people might not be aware of the opportunity. This was highlighted especially as an issue for students on Sutton Bonington Campus. In this respect, comments suggested that in halls students should be encouraged more to apply in summer term, as this might help to boost the number of applicants.

Disabled Student Support

A comment was made that more support should be given to those applicants with disability, to help them take part in the week. The comment read – ‘I think for disabled students there should be more of a focus either within the interview or during the application process so that provisions can be put in place to better support them.’

Q2) Please let us know what role you occupied during Welcome Week.

The above graph shows that 73.77% of the respondents were Welcome Mentors (45 People), 24.59% were Lead Mentors (15 People) and 1.64% were Welcome Committee Members (1 Person).
This should be noted regarding questions that are directed towards a specific group of respondents only.

Question to Lead Mentors only…Q6) How did you find the training you received for your role? Please rate each of the sessions offered to the Lead Mentors.

Only 13 out of 61 respondents answered this question. The scale was 1-5, with 1 being ‘Very Poor’ and 5 being ‘Excellent’. There was an option for the respondent to choose ‘Not Applicable’. The question offered these aspects of the training to be rated:

Online training Quiz –‘are you an expert?’
Online training – The SU is 3 things
Online training – What to do if
Online training – Conduct agreement
Leadership (with Andy Winter)
Team Building (with the Welcome Committee)
Conduct of Mentors and Rotas
Welfare
Dealing with Difficult Scenarios
Q&A
Day 1 main training: Bystander Intervention
Day 1 main training: Welfare Services
Day 1 main training: Safety in Welcome
Day 1 main training:Situational Judgement
Day 1 main training: Team Building
Day 1 main training: Big Events briefing
Day 1 main training: Commercial Awareness
Day 2 main training: Segmentation of students and past research
Day 2 main training: Culture Shock
Day 2 main training: Scenarios
Day 2 main training: Conduct
Day 2 main training: Dance and stash

All of the sessions were rated a 3 or above, with the average rating of 3.7. The highest rating given was 4.5, for the session ‘Day 2 main training: Dance and Stash’. The lowest rating given was 3.2, for the session ‘Online training Quiz –‘are you an expert’?’. The three most highly rated sessions were ‘Leadership (with Andy Winters)’, ‘Welfare’ and ‘Day 2 main training: Dance and Stash’, which all receive 4.3 or more. The three least rated sessions were the three initial online training sessions, all rated 3.2 or lower.

Comments -

Some of the themes raised in the comments left have been summarised below. They are ranked in order of how often they were raised, so more significant issues come first.

Practical experience

Multiple commenters suggested that there should be more practical training about how to deal with issues such as physical aggression and violence, or how to deal with those who are homesick. Respondents suggested that first aid training should be provided to enable mentors to help in emergency situations, at least for the lead mentors.

Team building within halls

Despite the fact there was some team building, respondents said they would have found it valuable to have team building within the individual hall groups. This would enable mentors to get to know their lead mentor better, and work as an effective group later in the week.

Practical itinerary and info

Respondents raised that they would have appreciated a session detailing the practical events of the week, and giving them information on day to day activities.

Good lead mentor training

Positive comments were received for the lead mentor specific training on day one. However, these were contrasted to the rest of the training, which wasn’t found as valuable.

Bystander training

There was a positive response to the bystander training, as it was seen as a tough subject handled well.

Question to Lead Mentors only…

Q7) How would you rate the communication you received from Students’ Union staff and the Welcome Committee?

13 respondents out of 61 responded to this question. The scale was 1-5, with 1 being ‘Very Poor’ and 5 being ‘Excellent’. Students were also given the option to respond ‘Does not reply to me’.

The aspects of communication to be rated were:

Frequency of contact and updates
Clarity and usefulness of messages/updates
Speed of response if you had a question
Approachability (did you feel comfortable asking questions)

All the aspect of communication were rated positively, with the average response for each aspect at over 4. It should be notes that half or more of the students for each category responded by rating the communication as ‘Excellent’. It is therefore appropriate to suggest that the response to communication was overwhelmingly positive.

Comments –

Deteriorated over the week

Respondents said that communication at the beginning of the week was effective, however it deteriorated as the week went on. This mostly caused issues when it wasn’t clear how many mentors were required for events, and therefore they weren’t able to arrange this in advance.

Attitude of the committee

Comments raised that the attitude of the committee towards mentors was unprofessional at times, and sometimes derogatory. One comment said ‘Committee members would say things like ‘You don’t talk to your committee like that’, ‘Do your job’, ‘I can do what I want. I am committee’ were heard frequently and it was pretty unprofessional.’Other respondents said this made them unapproachable, and therefore their questions went unanswered.

Facebook and WhatsApp

There were positive comments for the use of Facebook and WhatsApp for mentors, as it meant communication was quick and often well responded to.

Sutton Bonington

Comments raised that students from Sutton Bonington felt as though communication wasn’t always as effective to them. As a consequence, they often didn’t receive messages until very late, causing some confusion.

Q8) What were the most common questions that MENTORS asked LEAD MENTORS during the week?

This question was aimed at lead mentors and welcome committee. 13 respondents out of 61 answered. The question was split into 4 areas, including: ‘Most Common’, ‘Second Most Common’, ‘Third most common’ and ‘Other frequently asked questions’. Below, these responses have been split into groups, and it has been indicated where these questions were repeated on multiple occasions.

Most Common
14 Answers / Second Most Common
13 Answers / Third most common
8 Answers / Other FAQs
1 Answer
What is going on today?
What time should I come in for?
Where is the bus stop/what time is are the busses
Why don’t you get paid for this?
Do I have to do morning briefing?
Where can I buy tickets from?
Directions on campus.
When can I get time off? / Where should I be?
What events are on offer?
Why do you do this?
When will we get the rota?
Where is Portland?
Where can they get tickets?
What time are events?
How many busses do we have?
What should I be doing in halls?
Do I have to stay sober all week? / How to buy tickets?
Is it fun?
Where can I use my meal card?
How many tickets have we sold?
Whether they could go home.
Why do you do this?
Why have I got to do this shift? / What time is dinner?

Below, I have listed the top 3 questions asked across all responses:

Where should I be/What should I be doing?
Questions about rota: - When can I get time off?
- When should I be in?
Where can I get tickets from?

QUESTION TO MENTORS ONLY…

Q9) Which hall / Student group were you a mentor for?

44 respondents out of 61 answered this question. The answers given for ‘Other’ were all ‘QMC’.

The areas which had the most respondents were St Peter’s Court, Raleigh Park, Broadgate Park and Bonington Hall, although this may be representative of the number of mentors they had due to the size of the accommodation and the demands of self-catered halls.

Due to the size of the campus, we get the picture that the majority of respondents were mentors Off Campus, or on Jubilee or Sutton Bonington (27 respondents), with 17 respondents coming from University Park. Therefore, this should be taken into consideration when analysing the responses to this survey, as it will be impacted by the location of their experience.

Q10) How did you find the training you received for your role? Please rate each of the sessions offered to Welcome Mentors.

44 out of 61 respondents answered this question. It was specifically directed at Welcome Mentors. The scale was 1-5, with 1 being ‘Very poor’ and 5 being ‘Excellent’. The respondents were also given the chance to answer ‘Not Applicable’. The question offered these training sessions to be rated:

Online training Quiz –‘are you an expert’?
Online training – The SU is 3 things
Online training – What to do if
Online training – Conduct agreement
Day 1 main training: Bystander Intervention
Day 1 main training: Welfare Services
Day 1 main training: Safety in Welcome
Day 1 main training:Situational Judgement
Day 1 main training: Team Building
Day 1 main training: Big Events briefing
Day 1 main training: Commercial Awareness
Day 2 main training: Segmentation of students and past research
Day 2 main training: Culture Shock
Day 2 main training: Scenarios
Day 2 main training: Conduct
Day 2 main training: Dance and stash

All of the training sessions were rated 3 or over, with the average rating at 3.8. The highest rating given was 4.5, for the session ‘Day 1 main training: Bystander Intervention’. Other highly rated sessions included ‘Online training – Conduct agreement’, ‘Day 1 main training: Welfare Services’ and ‘Day 2 main training: Dance and stash’ all rated over 4.1. The lowest rating given was 3.4, for the session ‘Online training – The SU is 3 things’. Other sessions rated on the lower end of the average

included ‘Day 1 main training: Team Building’, ‘Online training Quiz –‘are you an expert’?’ and ‘Online training – What to do if’, all rated 3.5 or lower.

Because the average rating given to all of these sessions was over half, it is safe to say that the general response was positive.

Comments –

Length of Sessions

The majority of the comments addressed that the sessions could have been condensed into a shorter amount of time. Respondents found that there was a lot of repetition that could have been cut out, and the frequency of breaks/late starts meant that things often took longer than they could have.

Rough itinerary/daily tasks

Many comments said that more information on daily tasks and the itinerary for the week. Respondents found that they were lacking practical information, meaning that they couldn’t prepare in advance and were sometimes unable to answer basic questions, such as the location of registration and the activities for the day.

Team building

Multiple respondents raised that they would have appreciated more team building activities to enable group bonding. This could have been done more across individual halls and the entire welcome mentor team.