DCU Quality Office header
Quality and Institutional Insights Office

Student Reviewers

As part of DCU's student partnership framework, the University has procedures to enable the participation of students in our cyclical quality review process.  This is facilitated through the involvement of student representatives in the quality review process, and in the appointment of a Student Reviewer to each Peer Review Group (PRG).

Alongside national and international experts, these student reviewers participate as full members of the PRG.  Further information on what to expect as a Student Reviewer is provided below.  

Role of Student Reviewers

Student Reviewers have a range of responsibilities, in line with those shared with other PRG members. As a Student Reviewer, you will be expected to:

  • commit to reviewing documentation (including the area's self-assessment report) and provide initial comments ahead of the review visit for other panel members to consider;
  • engage with members of the review team in the lead-up to and throughout the site visit as required;
  • engage with staff and student stakeholders throughout the review visit;
  • contribute to the development of the PRG report and identify commendations and recommendations for quality enhancement.

Identification and Selection of Student Reviewers at DCU

The Quality and Institutional Insights Office (QIO) shall develop, maintain and update a list of potential reviewers, following the submission of an expression of interest by students. The process for identifying and recruiting potential student reviewers shall commence through an invitation to eligible students involved in Class Rep Council (CRC), Board/Committee Membership, and Club and Social Life Committee.   This process will be completed following close consultation between the Office of Student Life (OSL) and DCU Students' Union to identify a selection of suitable candidates. 

Student Reviewer Criteria

Students who are interested in becoming a Student Reviewer should meet the following criteria; 

  • be in year 3 of an undergraduate programme, a postgraduate student, or a recent graduate (no more than 2 years since completion of award)
  • will have participated, or will participate in either class-rep training or national N-StEP student reviewer training
  • are willing to participate in DCU student reviewer training before the quality review visit

Honorarium/ Recognition of Participation

Students are considered an equal member of the panel who will contribute, in equal measures to the review visit and report writing.  They will receive an honorarium payment in line with external panel members and will be required to commit to up to 4 days to complete the process, in addition to preparation and write-up time. 

Preparing to participate as a Student Reviewer 

The DCU Student Reviewer Training Programme will build on the high-quality class rep training provided through the development of a bespoke programme informing student reviewers about why HEI’s are mandated to conduct cyclical quality reviews, the benefits achieved in doing so for both the institution and student population and to best prepare them for their role on the panel.  Eligible students will also engage in the National Student Reviewer Training Programme, designed and delivered by the National Student Training and Engagement Programme (NStEP) and QQI.  Engaging in this multifaceted training will increase student readiness and provide clarity around the role and responsibility of the PRG. 

If required, support will be provided in developing your academic writing skills and providing you with tools and techniques to support building confidence in order to maximising your ability to add a valuable contribution and to enhance the overall experience.  To access further information relating to these services, please contact rachel.keegan@dcu.ie

Workload and Time-commitment

Student participants will be a full member of the Peer Review Group, and in line with other members will make a commitment to; 

  • review the Area Self-Assessment Report (SAR) and supporting documentation at least 4 weeks in advance of the review visit
  • provide initial comments in response to the documentation to the QPO team at least one week in advance of the visit.  Collective PRG comments will be shared with all members and used to identify areas that may require clarification and or additional information
  • participate in a 1-hour introductory meeting the week before the review visit (typically Friday) to discuss the PRG approach when engaging stakeholders and, select a chairperson ahead of the visit
  • commit to 4 – half days (remote review) or 3 full-day (on-campus review) to conduct the review, identify commendations and recommendations for quality improvement and the development of the PRG Report
  • two representatives of the PRG (Chairperson and Rapporteur) will participate in the quality improvement follow-up discussion one-month post-review visit 

Professional Development Opportunity 

Participating as a Student Reviewer on the Peer Review Group presents an opportunity to invest in your professional and personal development.  The experience will;

  • provide valuable insight into quality assurance structures at a national/international and institutional level through an evidence-based model of reflection

  • create a pathway for student representation development and or enhance your profile for a potential Sabbatical position in the SU

  • provide an opportunity to engage with multiple categories of staff across the university and broaden your network 

  • improve student readiness for participation in quality-related dialogue 

  • provide an opportunity to ensure the student voice is considered when implementing quality improvement initiatives

  • enhance your ability to recommend solution-focused recommendations for quality improvement  

How to be a good reviewer 

In order to maximise your participation on the review team, and to enjoy the overall experience of the quality review process, student reviewers might consider the following;

  • ensure you have reviewed all documentation provided relating to the area under review (SAR and associated material) 

  • make notes and ask questions where relevant

  • maintain a non-biased position throughout the review process and visit