Student–staff partnership in block learning: a practice account

Updated Sep 07, 2026

In an Advance HE article published 9 March 2026, Nurun Nahar describes student–staff partnership in the University of Greater Manchester’s block-learning model. The article argues for partnership to be planned within the teaching cycle. Practice account.

The approach described

Nahar presents a framework based on mutual respect, shared responsibility, reciprocity, inclusivity, transparency and empowerment. It moves from shared objectives and role clarification to planned feedback opportunities, with attention to who participates.

The article describes Greater Manchester Business School’s Students-as-Partners panel working with academic staff, quality teams and senior management. It reports that student members helped develop an approach to evaluating assessment and feedback within five-week blocks, including the sequencing of formative feedback.

These are the author’s descriptions of local practice. The article does not supply a controlled evaluation showing that the panel caused higher attainment, better retention or narrower equity gaps. Its argument about continuous dialogue should be read as a practice proposal, rather than a new sector requirement or a guarantee of effectiveness.

Fit the response to the teaching window

Our practical suggestion is to plan when a concern can still inform the current block and when it must inform the next one. Make that distinction visible to students. An early collection point is useful only if someone has time and authority to consider what it raises.

Agree which decisions students can help shape and how disagreement will be handled. Review who joins a panel and whose experiences may be absent, rather than treating volunteers as representative of every student.

Keep an account of the question raised, evidence considered and decision made. When looking across blocks, record differences in questions and participation before describing a trend. The governance checklist offers questions about making this review process traceable.

Review note, 7 September 2026: verified the author’s practice account and its date, retained the local framework and panel details, and separated those descriptions from untested claims about effectiveness and service benefits.