1 / 17

Institutional data, learning experiences and diversity

Institutional data, learning experiences and diversity. Muir Houston & Russell Rimmer. Structure. Why are we doing IR? Who we are What we have done How we do it What we found Discussion. Why we do institutional research. In 2000 the purpose was to

bina
Download Presentation

Institutional data, learning experiences and diversity

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Institutional data, learning experiences and diversity Muir Houston & Russell Rimmer

  2. Structure Why are we doing IR? Who we are What we have done How we do it What we found Discussion

  3. Why we do institutional research In 2000 the purpose was to build a longitudinal picture of undergraduates at UWS, focusing on the student experience and linkages between Access and the initial decision to enrol Academic achievement Retention Value added Since then our work has expanded to include English and Australian universities Why? To study the influences of student diversity and curricular provision/flexibility on student decision making, academic performance, persistence and progression

  4. Who we are Muir LLL: From mechanic to FE to HE to Ph D Sociology , education Institute of Education, Stirling ESRC TLRP project WHAN ARVA UWS Mixed-methods research U/g; full-/part time Russell Ass Dean L & T, QMU Economics, management U/g students Scotland, Australia MBA Careers of part-time students Model building Quantitative, longitudinal

  5. Apply qualitative and quantitative methods Use large databases Augment Registry data with surveys and interviews/focus groups analysis of full- & part-time undergraduates analyses of linkages between performance progression entry qualifications area or subject of study age/gender ethnicity What/how: undergraduate

  6. Student characteristics Institutional factors Performance Progression Engagement Effort What we found: feedback loop

  7. Age & gender effects: full-timers

  8. Age & gender effects: part-timers

  9. Diminishing returns: Business schools

  10. Age/gender & diminishing returns

  11. Results Effort Feedback loop

  12. Dynamics • Feedback  dynamic process • Links • effort  results: Effort link • results effort: Result link • Assume • Effort link specifies effort to be made for the results expected • Result link gives actualmark for effort expended • If expected result is greater (less) than actual result then effort is reduced (increased) • Dynamic process has an ‘attractor’ • combination of effort and result to which outcomes tend

  13. What next • Changing study approach • SAMI intervention with Tim Duffy • Implications of our undergraduate research • Where to now? • Exploit longitudinal aspects • influences of student diversity and curricular provision/flexibility on student decision making, academic performance, persistence and progression

  14. References • Donnelly, M, McCormack, D and Rimmer, R (2007) ‘Load and academic attainment in two business schools’, Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 32(6), 1-18. • Duffy, T and Rimmer, R (2008) Improving Students’ Approaches to Study, Exeter: Reflectpress.co.uk • Foster, J., Houston, M., Knox, H. & Rimmer, R. (2002) Surviving First Year, LLRG Occasional Paper No.1, University of Paisley. ISBN: 1903978106 • Houston, M. (2008) 'Tracking transition: issues in asynchronous e-mail interviewing' FQS, 9(2). • Houston, M, Knox, H and Rimmer, R (2007) ‘Wider access and progression among full-time students’, Higher Education, 53(1), 107-146. •  Houston, M. Knox, H. & Rimmer, R. (2003) Progress and Performance, LLRG Occasional Papers No.3, University of Paisley. ISBN: 1903978173 • Houston, M and Rimmer, R (2008) ‘Learning dynamics in an ex-industrial region’, paper to PASCAL European Network of Regions of Lifelong Learning, University of Limerick, May. • Houston, M and Rimmer, R (2008) ‘School mathematics and university outcomes’, paper to the Conference on Mathematics Support at University, University of St Andrew’s. To appear in Grove, M and Marr, C, Addressing the Quantitative Skills Gap: Establishing and sustaining cross-curricular mathematical support in higher education, Glasgow: HEA Mathematics, Statistics and Operations Research Network. • Houston, M. & Rimmer, R. (2005) ‘A comparison of academic outcomes for business and other students’ International Journal of Management Education Vol. 4, No.3, pp11-19 • Houston, M. & Wood, E. (2005) Biosciences: an overview of undergraduate studies in the UK, Open University. • Houston, M and Lebeau, Y (2006) The social mediation of university learning, Working paper No. 3, HEA/Open University • Reeves, A and Rimmer, R (2008) ‘Assessing learning in an Executive MBA’, to appear International Journal of Management Education, September.

  15. Discussion • Implications of our undergraduate research • Where to now? • Exploit longitudinal aspects • influences of student diversity and curricular provision/flexibility on student decision making, academic performance, persistence and progression

More Related