Why w work rking i in partn tnership is the r right t t thing - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Why w work rking i in partn tnership is the r right t t thing t to do COLIN B CO BRYS YSON ON A AND H D HAZEL G GORDON COLIN.BRYSON@NCL.AC.UK H.GORDON1@NCL.AC.UK CANTERBURY2018

The nature of student engagement Holistic and socially constructed  Every student is an individual and different ( Haggis, 2004 )  Engagement is a concept which encompasses the perceptions, expectations and experience of being a student and the construction of being a student in HE ( Bryson and Hand, 2007 ).  Engagement underpins learning and is the glue that binds it together – both located in being and becoming. ( Fromm, 1977 )  Powerful and deep learning requires strong engagement  Salience of transformative learning  Becoming – self-authorship ( Baxter Magolda ), self efficacy ( Tinto ), critical being ( Barnett ), graduate identity ( Holmes ) CANTERBURY2018

 To involve and work with students in partnership  To establish an annual conference drawing together leading edge work on SE - and to feed into publication through journals and books. Call for submissions open – see website  To disseminate good ideas and practice via our journal and other methods – Student Engagement in Higher Education Journal  Develop and support themes and interests through SIGS  To facilitate communication between us (web, email network etc) http://www.raise-network.com CANTERBURY2018

Why partnership?  Grew out of our holistic student engagement strategy (Bryson, 2014; Furlonger et al, 2014)  Resonates with student engagement and seeking transformative learning  Roots in critical and radical pedagogy  Counter to neo-liberalism and the model of students as consumer (A Manifesto for Partnership, NUS, 2012; Neary; McCullough) CANTERBURY2018

The virtues of partnership Epitomises positive values in society  Ethical  Democratic  Enables Higher Education to a make a more profound contribution to society  Education should be exemplary but also dynamic, be progressive and ‘public’ CANTERBURY2018

Cook-Sather, Bovill and Felten (2014:6) We define student-faculty partnership as a collaborative, reciprocal process through which all participants have the opportunity to contribute equally, though not necessarily in the same ways, to curriculum or pedagogical conceptualisation, decision making, implementation, investigation or analysis CANTERBURY2018

The ethos of partnership Principles of respect, repricocity and responsibility ( Cook Sather et al, 2014 ) The participant must perceive ( Bryson, Furlonger and Rinaldo, 2015 ):  That their participation and contribution is valued and valuable;  A sense of co-ownership, inclusion, and equalising of power relations between students and staff;  A sense of democracy, with an emphasis on participative democracy;  Membership of a community related to learning and educational context And this needs to be realised in practice – a virtuous circle CANTERBURY2018

What is partnership? CANTERBURY2018

A typology of SaP roles  Consultant to staff  Co-designing  Co-researching  Change-agent ( Dunne and Zandstra, 2011 )  Peer leading Focussed on SoTL, curriculum, QA/QE, subject based CANTERBURY2018

Benefits of partnership ( Cook-Sather, Bovill and Felten, 2014 ) Enhances (for both students AND staff)  Engagement (motivation, in the learning process itself, sense of responsibility, recognition)  Metacognitive awareness and identity  Actual L&T and classroom experiences CANTERBURY2018

Institutional examples  The Teaching and Learning Academy (http://library.wwu.edu/tla )  SALTs and similar schemes (Brynmawr, Winchester, BCU, Exeter, UCL)  Lincoln – a comprehensive approach So what are examples here? CANTERBURY2018

Modes of partnership CANTERBURY2018

Pseudo-partnership  May have a gloss of partnership features  Student as proto-academic  Staff as patron  Ironically- student may ‘feel like a partner’ Canterbury2018

Collective  Ethically and socially legitimate – co-governance  Can be corrupted or set up in such a way as to undermine partnership (oligarchies exclude)  Participative rather than representational?  Mutual rather than adversarial  Very challenging to establish and sustain…Communes and co-operatives Canterbury2018

Selective partnership  This is the standard model - currently  Individualised relationships between student:staff  Great benefits for these students but….after deeper evaluation and reflection Canterbury2018

Issues for this model  Lack of inclusivity - opportunities for few and not all  Selective investment  Those that participate already have the most social capital!  A bit elitist? Canterbury2018

Bring nging ng i in Univer ersal Partne nershi hip p  A partnership ethos and culture FOR ALL STUDENTS  Collective and inclusive  The curriculum offers ‘whole class’ participation Requiring  Co-ownership of the agenda and process  Democratically agreeing important dimensions  Building student:student (as well as staff:student)  And all ‘feel’ like a partner and all benefit Canterbury2018

Co-design of curriculum 3 modes of student involvement 1. (Experienced) students (re)design a module 2. Students designing the module as it proceeds. 3. Students design a future module that they will do CANTERBURY2018

A case study CANTERBURY2018

Seeking to embed partnership Combined Honours at Newcastle  Diverse and complex  Individuals doing unique degree  Missing sense of identity/ belonging  But few resources and so difficult to influence the existing curriculum CANTERBURY2018

Who am I? • Hazel Gordon • Psychology and Philosophy Stage 3 • PASS Advisor in stage 2 and 3 • Combined Final Year Project • Presented at student led research project at RAISE 2017 • Social Secretary of the Canoe Society CANTERBURY2018

Why is student engagement so important? Opportunities Enriched learning Confidence experience ? Making connections Emotional development “Engaged students are more likely to perform well… and contribute to a safe, positive and creative school climate and culture” (H, Marks 2000) CANTERBURY2018

Involving the students Student representation:  Student -Staff Committee  Empowerment- Student led, working groups  Active agenda – providing solutions  The engine room of change  Staff supported Success stories Little things and bigger things  Change the name of the degree  Defending the degree  New curriculum and module co-design CANTERBURY2018

Enhancing engagement in CH Peer leadership - Schemes student led but strong staff support  Mentors, Peer Welfare Ambassadors  PASS  CHallenge, CHS  Commuter Network  PICNIC  Graduate mentoring  Building a community:  Common room and reception  Social agenda – the CHS & CHallenge  Joining it all up – events and activities are shared and promoted by all parties The Graduate Development modules – rewarding good practice and enabling projects CANTERBURY2018

Partnership within modules  7 modules across all stages of degree  Doing as much as possible in partnership, includes co-deciding: ◦ Shape and delivery (in part) of the module ◦ Students choose own projects/topics and thus drive content ◦ The types of assessment, weighting and deadlines ◦ Criteria (and thus learning outcomes) and ‘standards’ CANTERBURY2018

Reflections on our approach  Involves around 80 students in roles per year  Wider opportunities for involvement – co-researching and internships, presenting at conferences, new ideas  PICNIC – short term student exchanges  Another 100 students do our modules  Outcomes very strong – massive improvement in quality of student experience – students and schemes win awards; strong evidence (cohort surveys etc) –satisfaction in the NSS (average 97% over last five years); recruitment growth  But, does this work smoothly and deliver all tat we might wish…..?????? CANTERBURY2018

Issues and challenges Are there any? CANTERBURY2018

Challenges and ways forward  Getting started!  Feeling blocked (gatekeepers),  Getting staff colleagues on board…  Will the students take part?  Avoiding ’doing partnership’  Misunderstanding the point  Coercion into partnership CANTERBURY2018

More challenges  Vulnerability and risk to students and staff  Keeping it fresh, exciting and radical  Will students be too radical? Can I say no?  Being too selective in choice of partner  Trying to be inclusive, behaving ethically and fairly – phronesis ( Taylor and Robinson, 2014)  Reward –wrong incentive (transactional) vs no incentive (exploitative)  Coping with unpredictability and disruptive outcomes CANTERBURY2018

Issues for the universal/curriculum model  Students sign up for the module and not necessarily partnership  Some don’t like partnership–– risk and vulnerability  More challenging for students because so different from other modules  Tension between democratic principles vs ethics; collective v individual  Module feedback is sometimes interesting! CANTERBURY2018