Manchester’s pilot pairs students and academics in teaching review

Updated Sep 07, 2026

Updated, 7 September 2026: We checked the complete paper and replaced broad improvement claims with the pilot’s actual design and evaluation. Student recruitment was through existing representatives, rather than evidence that the scheme reached beyond them.

How the pilot worked

Emma Hollenberg and Mario Pezzino describe a voluntary teaching-review scheme in the University of Manchester’s School of Social Sciences, developed with the students’ union. It ran alongside the institution’s formal review process.

Student reviewers were paid and paired with academic reviewers. Staff requesting a review could choose the teaching aspects to examine; coordinators matched reviewers. Academics received no formal workload allocation for this voluntary scheme.

The paper reports 18 completed reviews. Its evaluation draws on feedback from four student reviewers, ten academic reviewers and ten staff who received reviews. Participants generally valued the complementary perspectives. They also requested clearer guidance, more ongoing support and easier scheduling. The authors report selected initial feedback rather than a formal thematic analysis or controlled outcome study.

The small, self-selected pilot cannot establish improved teaching quality, representative student views or the absence of power imbalances. The source itself inconsistently describes four recruited students but lists programme allocations totalling five; the briefing does not rely on that distribution. Expansion and longer-term effects remained matters for further work.

Questions for a local pilot

Our suggested starting point is to define what the review is for and who will see its output. A developmental conversation and a formal performance decision carry different expectations. Explain those boundaries to both staff and student reviewers.

Check the training, payment and coordination needed before inviting participation. Ask whether students can raise concerns about the process, including when a partnership does not feel equal. Favourable feedback from volunteers should be considered alongside people who declined or withdrew.

If the scheme is intended to improve teaching, specify how that outcome will be examined beyond whether participants liked the review. The governance checklist can support planning for evidence and reporting. These are our evaluation suggestions, not benefits established for every institution or for a comment-analysis service.

Reference

Hollenberg, E. and Pezzino, M. (2026). Students as Partners in Peer Review of Teaching: A Collaborative Model Involving the Students’ Union. Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal, 7(3). Open paper.