Image: world.edu
Student engagement in teaching,
learning and assessment
@mikehamlyn
Outline
Individual engagement
retention and success
a sense of belonging
Benefits of engagement
for the individual
and society
Engagement Outcomes
Module and award level
Public informatiion
League Tables
What can we do with the data
portfolio performance
how to get “smart”
how to improve outcomes from better engagement
The future
How will we carry on?
Is this engagement?
How do you know?
Does this reflect reality?
What will engaged students look like in the future?
Individual Engagement
• Student Retention and Success Project
• 1. At the heart of student retention and success is a strong sense of
belonging in HE for students. This is most effectively nurtured
through mainstream activities that all students participate in.
• 2. The academic sphere is the most important site for nurturing
belonging.
• 3. Specific interventions cannot be recommended over and above
each other. Rather the institution, department and programme
should all nurture a culture of belonging.
• 4. Student belonging is an outcome of: supportive peer relations;
meaningful interaction between staff and students; developing
knowledge, confidence and identity as successful HE learners; and
an HE experience which is relevant to interests and future goals.
Benefits of engagement
Engaged students get better outcomes
Celebrating individual success
Maximising individual rewards
Maximising contribution to society
Market and non-market benefits
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/25410
1/bis-13-1268-benefits-of-higher-education-participation-the-quadrants.pdf
How do we do this in a region of low aspiration?
Engagement Outcomes
Engagement Outcomes
• Students act
increasingly as engaged
consumers
– Access price
comparisons
– Access to performance
comparisons
– Demand better
outcomes
• University needs to
optimise
– Module and award level
outcomes
– Student survey results
– Public information
– League Tables
An engaged student reads….. An engaged student
contributes to…
Inputs
Outcomes
Spend per student
Staff student ratios
Entry standards
Research ratings
Cost of living
Spend on services
Faculty spend
Number of “good”
degrees
National Student
Survey results
Retention rates
Employability
Student Input to Information
•
National Student Survey
–
–
–
–
•
•
•
Measure of final year students
Questions on satisfaction with course
Satisfaction with teaching and learning
Satisfaction with assessment and feedback
Degree results
Retention
Employability
Used in 3 areas:
– League tables/KIS (external)
– Portfolio performance review (internal)
– Award annual monitoring (internal)
League Tables – a mirror.
League Tables
Overall Position in Guardian Guide
0
20
Ovwerall Position
40
60
80
100
120
Staffordshire
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
74
67
55
69
77
96
92
NSS Teaching (%)
87.0
86.0
85.0
84.0
83.0
82.0
81.0
80.0
79.0
78.0
77.0
NSS Teaching (%)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
81.6
80.5
82.0
83.3
86
67/119
NSS Overall (%)
86.0
84.0
82.0
80.0
78.0
76.0
74.0
NSS Overall (%)
year
2010
2011
2012
2013
78.0
81.8
80.0
85
62/119
NSS Feedback (%)
74.0
72.0
70.0
68.0
66.0
64.0
62.0
60.0
58.0
NSS Feedback (%)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
63.3
65.4
66.3
68.3
72
38/119
Student: staff ratio
22.0
21.5
21.0
20.5
20.0
19.5
19.0
18.5
18.0
17.5
Student: staff ratio
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
19.1
19.0
21.7
21.6
20.3
83/119
Entry Tariff
260.0
255.0
250.0
245.0
240.0
235.0
230.0
225.0
Entry Tariff
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
249.4
235.8
238.5
245.5
254
107/119
Career prospects (%)
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
Career prospects (%)
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
65.2
63.2
56.4
55.1
48
113/119
Value added score/10
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
Value added score/10
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
5.2
5.2
4.7
4.0
3.8
108/119
Are we trying to improving
position or performance?
• Clearly, we can try to play the game of moving
our league table position
• What we really want to do is improve our
performance in each of the key areas to make
sure there is a sustainable and genuine change
Guardian criteria
Suggested Action
Entry standards
Review all current standard offers to pitch
ourselves properly against competitors
Student/staff ratio
Reviewed more thoroughly the data we submit
to HESA
Developing better models of SSR to identify
where investment is most needed
Spend per student
Reviewed more thoroughly the data we submit
to HESA
Reviewed classification of spend
Increased recent spend on libraries and IT will
have an impact
Guardian criteria
Action
Value added
Increased number of “good” degrees awarded.
Reviewing all level 6 modules with low pass rates
and average marks.
Identifying through portfolio review awards with
consistently poor progression and attainment
L&T conference on attainment
BME student performance
NSS teaching, assessment
and feedback and overall
satisfaction
Faculty action plans, and award level plans
Increased student engagement with survey
Seven principles of feedback
Online assessment and feedback project
Review through portfolio performance tool
employment
Staffordshire Graduate – improving our students’
chances of success
On-campus graduate internships
Student Input to Information
Used in 3 areas:
– League tables/KIS (external)
– Portfolio performance review (internal)
– Award annual monitoring (internal)
Portfolio performance review
• Measures:
• Uses
– Market
– Academic outcomes inc
good degrees
– Student satisfaction
– Employability
SNC/AB
B 2nd
stage
enrol
per
offer
0.5
0.22
0.12
0.42
total
apps/2
nd retenti retenti
% good % good
stage on
on
progres progres degree degree
enrol 2011 2012 s 2011 s 2012 s 2011 s 2012
5
9.50
16.00
3.40
90.0
90.0
90.0
90.0
56.0
60.0
100.0
93.3
100.0
100.0
86.4
77.8
100.0
80.0
100.0
100.0
72.7
77.8
66.7
25.0
50.0
50.0
66.7
25.0
– Comparison against
targets
– Comparison between
awards
– Annual monitoring
– Portfolio decisions
NSS
2012
total all total all total all total all
NSS
assess
levels levels levels levels dlhe
dlhe
2012 and
NSS
enrol enrol enrol enrol 2010- 2011- teachin feedba 2012
2010 2011 2012 2013 11
12
g
ck
overall
10
27
9
10
28
7
8
21
9
9
14
9
NSS
2013
score 2 assess
and
NSS
score 1 market quality led
NSS 2013 feedba 2013 led (enter
teaching ck
overall target below)
80
85
86
70
85
86
72
85
80.00
100.0
50.0
0.0
80.0
0.0
50.0
78.0
97.0
78.0
65.0
94.0
65.0
75.0
100.0
75.0
89.0
83.0
89.0
74.0
85.0
74.0
90.0
87.0
90.0
80.87
60.71
94.68
100.69
81.83
79.92
Student Input to Information
Used in 3 areas:
– League tables/KIS (external)
– Portfolio performance review (internal)
– Award annual monitoring (internal)
Annual Monitoring
• Key part of quality process
– Reflection on award performance
– Reflection on student engagement and outcomes
•
•
•
•
•
Statistics – progression, achievement, retention
Response to external examiner comments
Reflection on employer input
Staffordshire Graduate
Reports are made available to students, to demonstrate our
engagement
• Critically important for partner input, and to
recognise joint responsibility for improvements
How it fits together
Student surveys
Student satisfaction
Action Plans
Student
engagement and
outcomes
League tables
Annual Monitoring
Course improvements
reputation
Market demand
Improved engagement leads to
improved outcomes
• improved outcomes for individual students
– Grades and classifications
– Employability –getting into the right jobs
– Satisfaction
– Satisfying aspirations
• improved overall outcomes
– Institutional success and reputation
– Changing the aspirations of our communities
How institutional data and
analysis can help?
• Identifying performance metrics at module
level
• Identifying performance metrics for awards
• Developing a culture where this analysis
becomes embedded
– Being prepared to deal with the issue!
TLA practice
Relevant TL and assessment practice
Responsive curricula – employer and
technology led
Management Intervention
Questioning low average marks, poor
attainment rates
Managing the performance of the portfolio
Increased student engagement in course
design and monitoring
Increased emphasis on EEE (staff and students)
Staff engaged in reflective practice
Improving quality of teaching
Continuous staff development
How could we improve engagement
and outcomes for institution?
Uses of technology
Electronic assessment and feedback
Online communities
The future…..
How we teach in 2013?
Student portal
How to learn in 2020?
Mobile technologies
Improving individual engagement
Using “big data”?
Learning Analytics –
can work if all systems joined up
A way to encourage or check on student engagement?
Every log in
Every use of VLE – pages read, scores on formative tests
Use of library – frequency, downloads, loans
Attendance at class or online
A way to audit teaching as well…….
Or is this another example of technological solutionism?
LEADERSHIP AND LEARNING ANALYTICS, http://www.educause.edu/library/resources/leadership-and-learning-analytics
“To Save Everything, Click Here: Technology, Solutionism, and the Urge to Fix Problems that Don’t Exist” Evgeney Morozov, pb Allen Lane
2103, ISBN-10: 1846145481”
How will we engage students in learning when:
Half of what they learn in first year is out of date by the time they graduate?
They will have maybe 10 different jobs in their career?
The jobs they will do don’t even exist yet using technology that isn't invented yet,
to solve problems we don’t know are problems yet.
100 Billion queries a month on Google – who did we ask before?
90% of the data in the world was created in the last 2 years
There are more students in the top 5% in China than all the students in the UK
http://vimeo.com/58839986
@mikehamlyn
blogs.staffs.ac.uk/mgh1/