Transcript The Student Voice Enhancing Learning – Not Just Student Satisfaction Newcastle University 4 April 2011 Gwen van der Velden Director of Learning & Teaching Enhancement.

The Student Voice
Enhancing Learning – Not Just Student Satisfaction
Newcastle University
4 April 2011
Gwen van der Velden
Director of Learning & Teaching Enhancement / University of Bath
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: ‘The
burden is on the vendor to provide customer satisfaction’
(wa Mwachofi et al., 1995) and the result is negative: ‘…
the reconceptualization of the complex relationship
between 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
Superb Students’ Union Sabbs
And several
others, including
those at
departmental and
faculty levels
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)
–

Student Experience Survey/ Annual surveys
–

Annual departmental action plans
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*
15.3%
15.1%
2.7%
Strongly agree
Inclined to agree
12.1%
Inclined to disagree
Strongly disagree
Don't know enough to
comment
54.8%
*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 of
my course
2008
86
85
78
2009
86
84
77
2010
85
80
76
My feedback on the course is
listed to and valued
2008
56
54
50
2009
54
53
50
2010
55
51
50
2008
47
43
41
2009
46
44
42
2010
50
41
41
B6.2
B6.3
It is clear to me how students
comments on the course have
been acted upon
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
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]
[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
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’
–

Good working relationship between SU and
University
–
–



not them/us
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
–

March 2009
–

Agreement on all-department establishment of policies with SSLC
input
October 2010
–

Cross-campus campaign for feedback on exams
January 2010
–

Sabbatical election campaigns, candidates prioritise exam feedback
May 2009
–

Case closed, no feedback, for commonality reasons
Feedback policies introduced by all departments,
January 2011
–
Review instigated by SU
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 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)
Thanks for your attention…
Any questions?
Gwen van der Velden
Director of Learning & Teaching Enhancement / University of Bath
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: 01225 383775