Hearing the student voice – students as partners project

1. Hearing the student voice – students as partners project Sue Barnes Senior Lecturer in Computing Undergraduate Student Liaison and Student Representation Co-ordinator John Gardener Senior Lecturer in Business and Marketing Admissions Co-ordinator Worcester Business School

3. = +

4. Why was this research important? • Enhancing the student experience • Audit current practice • Uncover good practice • Students as partners

5. Our Approach • Informal feedback from staff and students regarding perceptions of current practice • Students are active partners in their learning experience • Students care about the wider picture

6. Phase 1: Consultation • Understanding of partner students’ experiences of communication • University managed resources • External resources • Receiving messages • Communication with university staff • Staff perceptions of communication with their students

7. Phase 2: Involvement • Following informal feedback • We conducted: • E-survey (targeting all WBS students) • Focus groups (staff and students) • WBS Staff away-day

8. Students reported these were used

9. Staff reported these were used

10. Phase 3: Participation • Non-university managed resources for communication: • Facebook • Text messages • Twitter • Blackberry messenger • Phone calls • Personal email • Online blog • Tumblr • Myspace • LinkedIn • Skype

11. Phase 3: Participation • SOLE • Blackboard • Netmail • ILS resources • Pebble Pad • Face-to-face • G drive /sky drive • University managed resources for communication:

12. Phase 4: Observations

13. Phase 4: Observations

14. Successes

15. Phase 5: Decisions • Too many channels of communication = too much ‘noise’ • Different approaches adopted = confusion • Students unsure what happens to their comments = reduced engagement

16. Suggestions • Student rep system (StARs) • Central resource (SOLE / BLACKBOARD) • Induction (USB)

17. Phase 6: Partner students • Part time students • Longer timeframe for messages • Targeted messages • So they are accessed by the right students • Non-university channels • Confusing or necessary? • Ownership of messages • Dated and ‘signed’

18. Phase 6: Our perceptions of students as researchers • Active participation • Engagement • Ownership • Interaction with staff

19. We strive to ensure that students are given the best possible experience, but sometimes it becomes evident that we can’t see the wood for the trees. • We ask students to ‘commit to their studies’ but if we are asking them to keep in touch via several channels of communication, is it little wonder that there might be some loss of message. • We use electronic, visual, face-to-face and the written word. All have their place, but we wanted to explore their appropriateness and effectiveness.

20. Future reading Campbell, F, Beasley L, Eland J and Rumpus A (2007) Hearing the Student Voice, final report http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/13053/ Kay J, Dunne E and Hutchinson J (2010) Rethinking the values of higher education – students as change agents http://www.qaa.ac.uk/Publications/InformationAndGuidance/Documents/StudentsChangeAgents.pdf Kidd W and Czerniawski Editors (2011) The Student Voice Handbook: bridging the academic/ practitioner divide (Google eBook) Emerald Group Publishing Williams J and Cappuccini-Ansfield G (2007) Fitness for Purpose: National and Institutional Approaches to Publicising the Student Voice Quality in Higher Education, vol 13; 2, July 2007, 159-172