Leading the student experience: academics and professional

services in partnership Project Leader: Sarah Parkes

Project Team: Julie Blackwell-Young (Newman University)Kenny Archibald (University of Hull)

Project Advisor: Elizabeth Cleaver (University of Hull)

Heads of Educational Development Group (HEDG) Summer Residential Meeting 20th June 2013

Warwick University

Why explore partnerships between academic and professional staff?

Students at the Heart of the System (Great Britain, 2011)– Legacy of Widening Participation –Marketisation of HE– Expectations re: ‘the student experience’– Driver for institutional differentiation

Academic, Social and Professional spheres of university life (Bulpitt, 2011)

2

Why explore partnerships between academic and professional staff?

Effect of increased tuition fees– Reliance on tuition fee income and thus increased focus

student retention, progression and success– Moral responsibility of HEI’s to enable student success

(Broadfoot in Thomas, 2012) Non-completion is part of a complex cultural and social picture (Walker et al, 2004;

Quinn, 2004) Student success relies on institutional transformation rather than increased

homogeneity (Jones and Thomas 2005, Thomas and May 2011). Reasons why students leave HE early are both within and outside of institutional control

(Blicharski, 2009; Gorard et al, 2006; Jones, 2008; Quinn 2004; Quinn et al, 2005; Yorke and Longden, 2008)

‘Non-traditional’ students ‘…spend less time in higher education institutions than their peers because they have other commitments such as family, employment and community, and are thus more exclusively focused on academic achievement’ (PHF, 2011).

3

Why explore partnerships between academic and professional staff?

4

Student Engagement to Improve Student Retention and Success (Thomas, 2012)

The ‘third space’

(Whitchurch, 2008, 2013))

Optimum site for generating student belonging and thus influence the

student experience through effective partnerships.

Research Aims1. Investigate the current state of play in a variety

of institutions delivering Higher Education.2. Highlight what makes the current successful

models work both in terms of the challenges that arise in relation to building effective partnerships and teamwork as well as the activities and behaviours that lead to success.

3. Develop a toolkit to facilitate HE providers in developing or implementing partnerships.

5

Research questions

1. Who is currently developing or has already developed successful partnership models for delivering and enhancing the student experience?

2. What is the experience of those developing or have already developed these partnership models?

3. How can these experiences be used to support future initiatives in this area?

6

Research Methodology

Phase One: Questionnaire survey Phase Two:

A.Focus groups from survey responsesB.Exemplars of practical significance

Survey Responses Focus Group Transcriptions Discourse analysis of publicly available

institutional documentation

Phase Three: Validation Workshop

7

Phase One: Who replied?

8

Disappointing response rate: 8 % (n=26) fully completing survey23 % (n=74) starting

Question 4: Into which of the following categories does your institution fit?

Pie Chart 1 showing institutional category of respondents:

16% (n=51) out of 326 contacts completed this part of the survey. This equates to 68% of the 74 respondents starting the survey

63%

4%

31%

2%

Public HE Institution (n=32)

Private HE Institution (n=2)

Public HE in FE Institution (n=16)

Private HE in FE Institution (n=0)

Other (n=1)

Survey Results: Who replied?

9

Question 5: If you are an institution of Higher Education, which of the following mission groups does your

institution align itself to?

Pie Chart 2 showing institutional mission group or alignment of respondents

16% (n= 51) out of 326 potential respondents completed this part of the survey. This equates to 68% of the 74

respondents starting the survey.

12%

10%

14%

6%10%

4%

19%

25%Russell Group (n=6)

1994 (n=5)

University Alliance (n=7)

Million Plus (n=3)

Guild HE (n=5)

UKADIA (n=2)

Non-aligned (n=10)

Other (n=13)

Phase One: Areas of Activity

23% (n=17): Committees; Strategic and working groups; networks;

31% (n=23): Projects; initiatives and associated activities.

10

Phase Two: Focus Groups• 17 Focus Groups/Interviews across 10 institutions– Geographical Spread

Scotland England

– Alignments covered Russell Group University Alliance Guild HE NB: 1 HE in FE Cathedrals Group NB: 1 also GuildHE Private Non-aligned

11

Phase Two: Exemplar of Practical Significance

1. Newcastle: Recap2. MMET: EQAL3. The University of Edinburgh: PESS4. Newman University: SAST

12

Phase Three: Validation Workshop1. Account for institutional differences

Terminology Structures

2. ‘Readiness for Partnership Working Assessment: Questions and Scales’3. Creating Space4. Planning for failure – ‘Risk’ 5. Sustainability

Emergent Themes

i. The need to understand and analyse both internal and external drivers for the enhancement of the student experience, and how these can work towards or against the development a fit-for purpose holistic approach;

ii. The need to recognise the messy nature of sector and organisational change, the often organic nature of change and potential associated feelings of uncertainty for staff involved;

iii. The importance of institutional reward and/or recognition for staff and students involved in activities that promote teamwork and collaboration to enhance the student experience;

iv. The importance of honesty, openness and disclosure which, together, underpin the success of partnership development;

v. The importance of understanding that partnerships which focus on achieving enhancement of the ‘student experience’ must be supported at the strategic level if they are to be wholly successful and if their outcomes are to affect institutional change.

13

Readiness for Partnership Working

What is the level of agreement amongst potential partners that partnership working would be beneficial in this project area? Evidence: Are all partners on board and ready to work

together? Are there any particular sticking points or bottlenecks that you can identify? Do you have a history of partnership working in this area?

14

Readiness for Partnership Working

Is there a clear shared vision for outcomes in this area?Evidence:

Is there a shared vision and if so what is it? Are there different understandings across the institution?

15

Readiness for Partnership Working

Capacity (resources)

Evidence: What existing resources are there? What

might you need? Are staff committed to (or do they have the capacity to fully commit to) the partnership project? Does the project have an executive sponsor?

16

Readiness for Partnership Working

Ease of identifying groups to be involved

Evidence: Who is already involved? Who could be involved and why?

17

Readiness for Partnership Working

Actions and Recommendations

Evidence: What do you need to do before the

partnership is initiated? How can this best be supported?

18

1. Defining the Student Experience;2. Institutional mechanisms for and of student

engagement;3. Evaluating the effectiveness of activities to

enhance the student experience;4. Fostering creativity and innovation in

partnership working;5. Valuing, supporting and rewarding partnership

working.

19

SRQ’s: Five Strategic Enablers

SRQ’s: Five Strategic Enablers

1. Defining the Student Experience 1.1: How is the ‘student experience’ defined in your institution?1.2: How is your institutional definition of the ‘student experience’ embedded and/or articulated within institutional strategy, vision, mission and ethos and at the faculty and departmental level? 1.3: What steps could be taken to ensure that definitions are agreed, understood and embedded institution-wide at a range of levels?

20

SRQ’s: Five Strategic Enablers2. Providing Institutional mechanisms for and of

student engagement2.1: What formal and informal mechanisms exist for the bringing together of students with a cross- section of academic and professional support staff to report on and develop the student experience? 2.2 How are the outcomes and outputs from these various partnerships joined up at the institutional level?2.3 What communication tools and strategies are employed to highlight, maintain and develop awareness across projects?

21

SRQ’s: Five Strategic Enablers

3. Evaluating the effectiveness of activities to enhance the student experience3.1: What mechanisms are used to evaluate the effectiveness of activities undertaken to enhance the student experience?3.2: How do you use, measure and respond to positive and negative ‘student experience’ indicators? (e.g. NSS scores)3.3: In what ways are students involved in such evaluations and responses?

22

SRQ’s: Five Strategic Enablers4. Fostering creativity and innovation in partnership

working4.1: How are opportunities for innovation and creativity in partnership working embedded within institutional strategies and operational structures?4.2: How is engagement in sector-wide discussions regarding ‘the student experience’ encouraged and valued throughout the university and subsequently translated into the context of the institution?4.3: How can lessons learned from less successful projects (i.e. those not meeting expectations) be built on constructively and creatively?

23

SRQ’s: Five Strategic Enablers5. Valuing, supporting and rewarding partnership

working5.1: How does your institution actively support cross-institution partnerships to share practice?5.2: To what extent does the institution articulate a balanced view of the value of involvement in research, learning and teaching, and wider academic citizenship, Engagement and support activities? 5.3: How is appropriate recognition of involvement in activities to enhance the student experience built into existing reward and recognition structures for staff and students?

24

Seven SRQ’s: Operational ConditionsA. Contextual evidence used to connect aims and goals; B. Active consultation and engagement with

stakeholders; C. Identification and engagement of key contributors; D. Clear definitions of roles and responsibilities; E. Effective communication and dissemination occurring

or planned; F. Methods for evaluating and measuring effectiveness

established;G. Awareness of change(s) and mechanisms developed

for sustainability.

25

Seven SRQ’s: Operational ConditionsA. Contextual evidence used to connect aims and goals

A.1: How is internal and external evidence used to underpin and contextualise the operation of the partnership; is this research-based or from other areas of practice? A.2: How do the aims and goals of the partnership relate to the elements of ‘student experience’ academic, social and/or services) that contribute to generating a sense of belonging in students?A.3: How do partnership/project aims and goals articulate, relate to and support institutional definitions of ‘the student experience’?

26

Seven SRQ’s: Operational ConditionsB. Active consultation and engagement with

stakeholdersB.1: What opportunities are there/will there be for meaningful staff and student awareness and understanding of the partnership/project?B.2: What opportunities are there/will there be for meaningful staff and student consultation on and engagement in the project/partnership?B.3: How will feedback from staff and students on the partnership/project be effectively disseminated and actioned?

27

Seven SRQ’s: Operational ConditionsC. Identification and engagement of key contributors

C.1: How will the partnership/project as certain the ‘right’ people to be involved including colleagues external to

the HEI or in positions without formal responsibility within the institution? C.2: How sustainable are individual and group contributions

to the project/partnership and how will they be funded? C.3: In what ways might the overall structure of the partnership/project incorporate and overcome the restrictions some contributions might bring?

28

Seven SRQ’s: Operational Conditions

D. Clear definitions of roles and responsibilitiesD.1: How will you define clear roles and responsibilities in the partnership/project between students, academic and professional staff?D.2: How will this be communicated to both those involved and those outside the partnership/project? D.3: In what ways might post-holders adapt and develop the roles and responsibilities within the overall aims of the partnership/project?

29

Seven SRQ’s: Operational ConditionsE. Effective communication and dissemination

occurring or planned E.1: What are your communication and/or dissemination strategies and plans for engaging all levels of the institution, including group members, so they know what you are doing, when and why?E.2: How might the partnership/project adopt and adapt inclusive communication and dissemination strategies? E.3: What mechanisms allow for project dialogue between participants and with external stakeholders, and how might the partnership/project manage and include input from multiple ‘voices’?

30

Seven SRQ’s: Operational Conditions

F. Methods for evaluating and measuring effectiveness establishedF.1: How and when will the effectiveness of the partnership/project be measured and/or evaluated?F.2: How will key milestones be used to measure effectiveness and maintain relevance?F.3: Which groups are likely to be involved in evaluating the partnership/project?

31

Seven SRQ’s: Operational ConditionsG. Awareness of change(s) and mechanisms developed

for sustainabilityG.1: What capacity is there for changes to the partnership/project in terms of remit, resource levels and/or staffing should these be indicated by evaluation activities or required due to other contextual changes?G.2: What plans are there for any positive activities and outcomes to be embedded in on-going practice once the partnership/project has finished and disbanded?G.3: How will you communicate ‘lessons learned’ and examples of good practice to other related partnership/projects in your institution?

32

Closing thoughts about the ‘Toolkit’

• Increasing importance of partnership-working across stakeholders;

• The ‘student experience’ is not one dimensional but diverse;

• Recognition that experiences of HE form within a range of context specific activities and environments;

• Not a panacea: focuses on those elements of the ‘student experience’ that are within an institution’s power to control and/or influence.

33

ReferencesBecher, T and Trowler P (2001) Academic Tribes and Territories Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines. 2nd Ed. Buckingham: SRHE/OUP.

Blackmore, P. & Kandiko, C. (2012) Motivation in academic life: A prestige economy, Research in Post-Compulsory Education 16 (4) pp. 399-411

Blicharski, J., and Allardice, M (2000) ‘Tracking Students Progression: Learning Their Lessons’ [online] Widening Participation and lifelong learning, vol 2 no 3. Available at: http://www.staffs.ac.uk/services/ldc/dan/test/Volume2(3)/Allardice.html (accessed 11.01.12).

Bulpitt, G. (2012). Leading the student experience: Super-convergence of organisation, structure and business processes. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education.

Crossley, D. & Corbyn, G. (2010). Learn to Transform: Developing a 21st century approach to sustainable school transformation. London: Continuum

Great Britain. Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (2011) Students at the heart of the system. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

Jones, R., (2008) Student retention and success: a synthesis of research [online], Higher Education Academy. Available at: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/inclusion/wprs/WPRS_retention_synthesis (accessed 08.11.09).

Jones, R. (2010) ‘So just what is the Student Experience? The development of a conceptual framework for the student experience of undergraduate business students based on the themes emerging in the academic literature’; delivered at SRHE Conference, Newport, UK, 13-16 December.

Jones, R. and Thomas, L., (2005) ‘The 2003 UK government higher education white paper: a critical assessment of its implications for the access and widening participation agenda’, Journal of Education Policy, 20:5, p 615–30.

Macfarlane, B. (2011). ‘The morphing of academic practice: Unbundling and the rise of the para-academic’ Higher Education Quarterly, 65(1), pp. 59-73

Quinn, J. (2004) ‘Understanding working-class ‘drop-out’ from higher education through a sociocultural lens: cultural narratives and local contexts’, International Studies in Sociology of Education, Vol 14. Available at http://dx.doi.org/.org/10.1080/09620210400200119 accessed 04.08.2010.

34

ReferencesQuinn, J., Thomas, L., Slack, K., Casey, L., Thexton, W., Noble, J. (2005), ‘From life crisis to lifelong learning: Rethinking working-class ‘drop out’ from higher education’. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation .

Thomas, L. and May, H. (2011) in Thomas, L., and Jamieson-Ball, C. (eds) ‘Engaging students to improve student retention and success in higher education in Wales’, Higher Education Academy, [online]. Available from: http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/resources/detail/inclusion/Retention/EngagingStudentstoImrpoveRetentioninWales_English (accessed June 2011)

Thomas, L. (2012) ‘What Works? Student Retention and Success: an Overview of the Programme and Retention Convention’. HEA: What works? Student retention and success conference, York, UK, 28-29 March.

Thomas, L. (2012a) Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at a time of change: final report from the What Works? Student retention & success programme. London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation/HEFCE.

Thomas, L. (2012b) Building student engagement and belonging in Higher Education at a time of change: summary report from the What Works? Student retention & success programme. London: Paul Hamlyn Foundation/HEFCE.

Watson (2012) ‘Keynote address’. BELMAS Higher Education Leadership and Management research seminar, Reading, UK, 26 March.

Whitchurch, C. (2008) Professional managers in UK Higher Education: Preparing for complex futures. Final Report. London: Leadership Foundation for Higher Education

Whitchurch, C. (2009) ‘The rise of the blended professional in Higher Education: A comparison between the UK, Australia and the United States’, Higher Education, 58(3), pp. 407-418

Whitchurch, C. (2010) ‘Optimising the potential of Third Space professionals in Higher Education’, Zeitscrift fur Hoschschulentwicklung, 5(4), pp. 9-22

Yorke, M. and Longden, B. (2008) The first-year experience of higher education in the UK: Final Report, The Higher Education Academy.

35

Appendix Survey Results: Who does what?

36

69% (n=51) of respondents answered this question.

Survey Results: Who does what?

37

51% (n=38) of respondents answered this question.

Survey Results: Who does what?

38

51% (n=38) of respondents answered this question.