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?
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.
4
Research Aims
1. 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 responses
B.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?
Disappointing response rate: 8 % (n=26) fully completing survey
23 % (n=74) starting
Question 4: Into which of the following categories does your institution fit?
Pie Chart 1 showing institutional category of respondents:
2%
Public HE Institution (n=32)
Private HE Institution (n=2)
31%
Public HE in FE Institution (n=16)
63%
4%
Private HE in FE Institution (n=0)
Other (n=1)
16% (n=51) out of 326 contacts completed this part of the survey. This equates to 68% of the 74 respondents
starting the survey
8
Survey Results: Who replied?
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
Russell Group (n=6)
12%
25%
10%
1994 (n=5)
University Alliance (n=7)
Million Plus (n=3)
14%
Guild HE (n=5)
UKADIA (n=2)
19%
6%
10%
Non-aligned (n=10)
Other (n=13)
4%
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.
9
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.
2.
3.
4.
Newcastle: Recap
MMET: EQAL
The University of Edinburgh: PESS
Newman University: SAST
Phase Three: Validation Workshop
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Account for institutional differences
 Terminology
 Structures
‘Readiness for Partnership Working Assessment: Questions and Scales’
Creating Space
Planning for failure – ‘Risk’
Sustainability
12
Emergent Themes
i.
ii.
iii.
iv.
v.
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;
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;
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;
The importance of honesty, openness and disclosure which, together, underpin
the success of partnership development;
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
SRQ’s: Five Strategic Enablers
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
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 Enablers
2. Providing Institutional mechanisms for and of
student engagement
2.1: What formal and informal mechanisms exist for
the bringing together of students with a crosssection 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 experience
3.1: 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 Enablers
4. Fostering creativity and innovation in partnership
working
4.1: 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 Enablers
5. Valuing, supporting and rewarding partnership
working
5.1: How does your institution actively support crossinstitution 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 Conditions
A. 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 Conditions
A. 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 Conditions
B. Active consultation and engagement with
stakeholders
B.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 Conditions
C. 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 responsibilities
D.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 Conditions
E. 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
established
F.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 Conditions
G. Awareness of change(s) and mechanisms developed
for sustainability
G.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
References
Becher, 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
References
Quinn, 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?
69% (n=51) of
respondents
answered this
question.
36
Survey Results: Who does what?
51% (n=38) of
respondents
answered this
question.
37
Survey Results: Who does what?
Do students perform the following?
40
35
51% (n=38) of
respondents
answered this
question.
No of respondets
30
25
No
Yes – both
Yes – devolved
Yes –central
20
15
10
5
0
Learning
Support
Welfare and Life Disability and
Equity
Types of Activity
Personal and
Academic
Tutoring
Careers
Other
38