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

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)– 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: G.M.Vandervelden@bath.ac.uk Tel: 01225 383775

Thanks for your attention…

Any questions?