the student voice enhancing learning – not just student satisfaction gwen van der velden director...
TRANSCRIPT
The Student VoiceEnhancing Learning – Not Just Student Satisfaction
Gwen van der VeldenDirector of Learning & Teaching Enhancement / University of Bath
Newcastle University4 April 2011
Contents
About the University of Bath Student Engagement or Consumerism? Qualitative & Qualitative Results at Bath The Academic Community: A Student
Perspective Methods of Engagement Case Study: Exam Feedback Campaign
The University of Bath
’60 university, based on democratising principles
1994 group university: small (ish), campus based, elite student intake and active student community
Emphasis on STEM subjects, with Management school and small Hums/Soc sci depts
Conservative teaching culture
Student engagement
student engagement in relation to individual student learning: motivation and teaching methods
in relation to structures and processes: representation and negotiation
in relation to issues of identity: social and academic belonging of groups of students
Trowler (2010) for more
Student consumerism I
‘For 9K I do expect a first’ ‘It’s your job to perform in the class room’ Learning for the job, not for the discipline The role of the Students’ Union is to ensure
institutions provide high quality student experiences
Satisfaction, not learning
Student consumerism II
The student –staff relationship becomes based on meeting the expectations of the person who pays: ‘Theburden is on the vendor to provide customer satisfaction’(wa Mwachofi et al., 1995) and the result is negative: ‘… the reconceptualization of the complex relationshipbetween students and teachers to that of ‘service provider’ and ‘customer’ is likely to be corrosive of both sides of the relationship’
(Naidoo and Jamieson, 2005)
When students engagement meets consumerism
Collegial engagement: staff and students each have concepts of ‘success’ which have some substantial amount of overlap: student and staff member interact with the shared aim of enabling learning, and achievement of academic understanding and insight by the student.
Consumerist engagement: staff and students have little in common in their definition of success in the educational experience. Students expect to ‘receive’ a high score, whilst expecting value for fees from the teaching effort. Teaching effectiveness equals student results.
Van der Velden (2011)
Guiding Principles for the collegial Student Experience
1. The University of Bath acknowledges that students play a variety of roles in the University and that all should receive support.
These roles include:
• Learner • University Citizen • Local Resident • Colleague • Consumer • Scholar • Ambassador
Guiding Principles for the Student Experience Cont.
2. Students will be encouraged to fulfil their potential personally, academically and socially. This will be achieved through a mixture of both challenge and support.
3. Students will be encouraged to take both individual and collective responsibility for their own affairs and to participate fully in the life of the University.
4. The University aims to develop an inclusive institutional culture that recognises and capitalises on the intellectual and social benefits of having a diverse staff and student community.
5. The University will encourage students to express their views on all matters relating to their university experience.
6. The University will provide accurate, consistent and timely information to students about the life and work of the institution.
Three principles of quality for learning and teaching
Sound pedagogical principles, and respect for the discipline
Peer review or externality
The informed student voice
The informed student voice
Students’ Union partnerships Building up trust, sharing information: all of it Not satisfaction, but good learning Fully informed students: communication
strategy Negotiating realistic student expectations
together
The informed student voice:A student perspective (Charonis)
The ‘informed student voice’ – two levels The individual
– Training, briefings, debriefings for all students and officers who sit on University committees
The representative body– SU is representative of the voice of the students
Engagement Surveys / research
Surveys
Collaboration on setting questions, analysing results and setting strategic priorities
National Student Survey (NSS)– Annual departmental action plans
Student Experience Survey/ Annual surveys– Students’ perception of University/SU
Student Opinion Survey (SOS)– Students’ opinion of SU
Does it work? Quantitative results
Student Opinion Survey (NUS standardised) B6.3: ‘It is clear to me how students
comments on the course have been acted
upon’ NSS cross tabulation of Q22, teaching and
assessment averages and B6.3
Does it work? Quantitative results
The SU influences the decisions that the University takes*
15.1%
54.8%
2.7%
15.3%
12.1%
Strongly agree
Inclined to agree
Inclined to disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know enough tocomment
*1,296 responses, Data from SOS 2009
Does it work? Quantitative results
B6. Feedback from Students Year Uni. of Bath
Top Quartile
HEI
B6.1 I have had adequate opportunities to provide feedback on all elements ofmy course
2008 86 85 78
2009 86 84 77
2010 85 80 76
B6.2 My feedback on the course islisted to and valued
2008 56 54 50
2009 54 53 50
2010 55 51 50
B6.3 It is clear to me how studentscomments on the course havebeen acted upon
2008 47 43 41
2009 46 44 42
2010 50 41 41
NSS: Cross tabulation of Q22. and B6.3
JACS [1]
- - - - - Bath - - - - -
B6.3 [2] 80 78 72 68 68 55 51 51 45 41 34
Q22 [3] 91 91 91 87 82 86 75 85 81 85 78
Teach [4] 87 85 99 91 84 86 82 81 89 84 77
A & F [5] 67 71 81 72 57 61 51 65 68 55 60
Does it work? Quantitative results
Improvement in NSS ‘league table’ positions
[1] Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11001891[2] http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/Journals/THE/THE/19_August_2010/attachments/ranked%20by%20registered.xls [3] Source: Sunday Times University Guide 2011 Accessed online on 28/03/11
NSS 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Guardian 54th 49th 38th =23rd N/A
BBC =41st =46th =26th =29th =36th [1]
THE 54th 49th 32nd =29th =34th [2]
Sunday Times =78th =45th =27th =32nd =20th [3]
Qualitative results
Quality of enhancement improves; student input add value beyond expectations
Speed of enhancement increases Better negotiation on achievable aims (SU &
Uni) The university loses the initiative. Students
and academics win. Serious engagement, serious enhancement
The academic community
Everyone is a member of ‘The University’– not them/us
Good working relationship between SU and University– critical friends– mutual respect & shared vision/goals
Sharing of tasks & student-led initiatives Students viewed as experts at being students Central theme of ‘the student experience’
Methods of collegial engagement
Student representation on over 40 University committees
Regular meetings between senior staff and sabbatical officers
Degree Scheme Reviews / Annual Quality Reports Joint ‘Student Voice’ Presentation You Said, We Did Student/Staff Liaison Committees: Code of Practice
Case Study: Exam Feedback Campaign
December 2008– Case closed, no feedback, for commonality reasons
March 2009– Sabbatical election campaigns, candidates prioritise exam feedback
May 2009– Cross-campus campaign for feedback on exams
January 2010– Agreement on all-department establishment of policies with SSLC
input October 2010
– Feedback policies introduced by all departments, January 2011
– Review instigated by SU
ReferencesCoates, H. 2007. A Model for Online and General Campus-Based Student Engagement. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32, 121-141.Coates, H. 2010. Development of the Australasian survey of student engagement (AUSSE). Higher Education, 60, 1-17.Davis, T. M. & Murrell, P. H. 1993. Turning Teaching Into Learning: The Role of Student Responsibility in the Collegiate Experience, Washington DC, ERIC: Clearing House on Higher Education.Delucchi, M. & Korgen, K. 2002. "We're the Customer- We Pay the Tuition": Student Consumerism among Undergraduate Sociology Majors. Teaching Sociology, 30, 100-07.Delucchi, M. & Smith, W. L. 1997a. A Postmodern Explanation of Student Consumerism in Higher Education. Teaching Sociology, 25, 322-27.Delucchi, M. & Smith, W. L. 1997b. Satisfied Customers versus Pedagogic Responsibility: Further Thoughts on Student Consumerism. Teaching Sociology, 25, 336-37.Eisenberg, A. F. 1997. Education and the Marketplace: Conflicting Arenas? Response to "A Postmodern Explanation of Student Consumerism in Higher Education.". Teaching Sociology, 25, 328-32.Harper, S. R. & Quaye, S. J. 2009. Beyond Sameness, with Engagement and Outcomes for All. In: HARPER, S. R. & QUAYE, S. J. (eds.) Student Engagement in Higher Education. New York and London: Routledge.Naidoo, R. & Jamieson, I. 2005. Empowering participants or corroding learning? Towards a research agenda on the impact of student consumerism in higher education. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 267-281.Peltier, G. L., Laden, R. & Matranga, M. 1999. Student Persistence in College: A review of Research. Journal of College Student Retention, 1, 357-375.Pike, G. R. & Kuh, G. D. 2005. A Typology of Student Engagement for American Colleges and Universities. Research in Higher Education, 46, 185-209.Richardson, J. T. E., Slater, J. B. & Wilson, J. 2007. The National Student Survey: Development, Findings and Implications. Studies in Higher Education, 32, 557-580.Sellers, J. G. & Van der Velden, G. M. 2003. Supporting Student Retention. In: SMITH, B. (ed.) Continuing Professional Development Series. York: Higher Education Academy.Shepperd, J. W. 1997. Relevance and Responsibility: A Postmodern Response. Response to "A Postmodern Explanation of Student Consumerism in Higher Education.". Teaching Sociology, 25, 333-35.Trowler, V. 2010. Student Engagement literature review. York.Van der Velden, G.M. (2011) When Student Engagement meets Consumerism. (under development)
Gwen van der VeldenDirector of Learning & Teaching Enhancement / University of Bath
E-mail: [email protected] Tel: 01225 383775
Thanks for your attention…
Any questions?