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?