Student engagement in a research intensive setting

Dr Peter Lambert, Associate Dean (L&T) Humanities and Social Sciences Gwen van der Velden, Director of Learning & Teaching Enhancement

University of Bath

University of Leicester

The University of Bath

1960s university, based on democratising

principles

Research intensive, small (ish), campus based,

elite student intake and active student

community

Emphasis on STEM subjects, with School of

Management and H&SS Faculty

‘conservative’ teaching culture

Student engagement: research concepts

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

‘For 9K I expect a 2.1 or a first’

‘It’s your job to perform in the classroom’

Learning for the job, not for the discipline

The role of the Students’ Union is to ensure

institutions provide high quality student

experiences

The key is satisfaction, not learning

When students engagement meets consumerism

Collegial Engagement ethos: staff and students each have concepts of ‘success’ which have

some substantial amount of overlap: student and staff members interact with the shared aim of enabling learning, and achievement of academic understanding and insight by the student.

Consumerist Engagement ethos: staff and students have little in common in their definition of

success in the educational experience. Students expect to ‘receive’ a high grade, whilst expecting value for money from the teaching effort. Teaching effectiveness = student result

Van der Velden (2012)

Another form of consumerism?

Teacher centredness: education as a supply of knowledge to students who are increasingly deemed unable to receive and process that knowledge in the expected and time-honoured manner.

The traditional didactic approach is one of a clear supply and demand chain, with the staff in supplying role, and students in the receiving role. However, in this case, the supply side strongly holds the control over the educational experience, with no influence by the demand side.

Van der Velden (publication in 2013)

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 Collegial 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

Partnership with Students’ Union

Building up trust, sharing information: all of it

Not satisfaction, but good learning

Negotiating realistic student expectations

together

Superb Students’ Union Sabbs

And several

others, including

those at

departmental and

faculty levels

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

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

6 (diverse) departments: Economics,

Education, Health, Politics, Languages and

International Studies, Psychology and Social

Policy Sciences

3,000 undergraduate students

2010: Faculty restructuring. How to promote

student voice & Faculty L&T culture?

Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences

Communication & trust

Identify need for change & disseminate

existing good practice

Value Learning and Teaching underpinned

by informed student engagement

(Real) examples of collegial engagement in H&SS

Students’ representation on key strategic

committees

Feedback forms

Unit Descriptions

“were students consulted?”

Online Unit Feedback

- consultation with students

- transparency, accountability and action

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

Exam Feedback in H&SS

History of uncoordinated attempts to give

exam feedback. All departments offer

generic feedback

2010/11: One department trials option of

individual feedback on demand

2012/13: Three departments offer individual

feedback, other three offer targeted feedback

2013/14: All departments to offer generic,

individual and targeted feedback

Does it work? Quantitative results

NSS 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

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 of

my course

2010 86 80 76

2011 88 82 78

2012 91 81 84

B6.2 My feedback on the course is

listed to and valued

2010 55 51 50

2011 64 55 54

2012 71 58 59

B6.3 It is clear to me how students

comments on the course have

been acted upon

2010 50 40 41

2011 58 46 47

2012 64 52 51

NSS: Cross tabulation of Q22. and B6.3

JACS

[1]

X1 X2 X3 X4 X5 Bath Y1 Y2 Y3 Y4 Y5

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

Results of the change in ethos

Quality of enhancement improves; student

input adds value beyond expectations

Speed of enhancement increases

Better negotiation on achievable aims (SU &

Uni)

The university loses the initiative. Students

and academics gain

References Coates, 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 Collegial 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. http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/studentengagement/StudentEngagementEvidenceSummary.pdf

Thanks for your attention…

Any questions?