1 / 14

NSS issues for GEES: Where next?

NSS issues for GEES: Where next?. Paul White Professor of European Urban Geography Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Sheffield University of Manchester – 3 November 2010. Bi-partisanship on information. The NSS introduced in 2005, under Labour The Select Committee débacle

skip
Download Presentation

NSS issues for GEES: Where next?

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. NSS issues for GEES: Where next? Paul White Professor of European Urban Geography Pro-Vice-Chancellor, University of Sheffield University of Manchester – 3 November 2010

  2. Bi-partisanship on information • The NSS introduced in 2005, under Labour • The Select Committee débacle • The Mandelson – Willetts agreement, November 2009 • Willetts’ views on information for candidates • The Key Information Set (KIS), HEFCE and the Browne Review • Information, transparency and quality • But, are existing data sets (e.g. via Unistats) actually used by candidates?

  3. KIS • Oakleigh Consulting and Staffordshire University; HEFCE response; now enshrined in the Browne Review recommendations • A generic set of standard information for all programmes, and in a standard format • Will be required of institutions (England only, but what about the devolved administrations?) • Research only carried out on UK school leavers • Possibly to be supplemented by KIS+ at institutional level (L/T strategy, WP strategy etc.) • HEFCE consultation scheduled shortly (but may be overtaken by Browne Review deals)

  4. KIS content • Student satisfaction with: standard of teaching; course; support and guidance received; feedback on assessment; library facilities; IT facilities; Student Union • Weekly contact time; % assessment by coursework • % employed in professional or managerial job 1 year post-graduation; % in employment 1 year post-graduation; average salary 1 year post-graduation; professional body recognition • Cost of halls of residence; maximum available bursary; max household income for bursary

  5. NSS as a base • Several of the satisfaction indicators derive from the NSS • Although not at programme level • So, how do GEES subjects do in the NSS?

  6. Some very good news (% agreement) Sector wide Physical geog/ Hum/Soc Geol Env Science Geog Teaching 83 90 92 91 Assess/Fdbck 66 68 71 71 Acad. Supp. 75 81 81 82 Organ / Man. 73 83 88 81 Learning Res. 80 82 83 85 Personal Dev. 79 82 83 81 Overall 82 89 91 91

  7. Some very good news (% agreement) Sector wide Physical geog/ Hum/Soc Geol Env Science Geog Teaching 83 90 92 91 Assess/Fdbck 66 68 71 71 Acad. Supp. 75 81 81 82 Organ / Man. 73 83 88 81 Learning Res. 80 8283 85 Personal Dev. 79 8283 81 Overall 82 89 91 91 Areas where we lead by less than 5% are shown in orange

  8. Why do we do well? Correlations with the overall score for departments: Phys Geog / ES Hum/Soc Geog 1. Teach. 0.73 Teach. 0.83 2. Ac Supp. 0.68 Ac Supp. 0.72 3. Org/Man. 0.62 Org/Man. 0.67 4. Pers. Dev. 0.48 Ass/Fdbck. 0.66 5. Learn Res. 0.39 Pers. Dev. 0.17 6. Ass/Fdbck. 0.36 Learn Res. 0.15

  9. Some curiosities Where institutions score in both Geography JACS codes, there is often little relationship visible: Hum / Soc Geog Overall satisfaction score Phys Geog/ ES Some correlations: Teaching +0.12 Academic support +0.21 Ass/fdbck +0.61 Overall satisfaction +0.31

  10. … and some questions • Although we outperfom the sector in assessment and feedback, could we do better? • As disciplines that claim to develop transferable skills, are we satisfied with our personal development scores? • Scores for academic support go down into the 50s. How might we improve those? • Scores for teaching tend to be higher in HSG and in Geology than in PGES. Why is that?

  11. The future of the NSS etc. • The NSS is here to stay for the foreseeable future • Its format is unlikely to change – comparability is a key issue • It may be supplemented in various ways • The PTES could well become compulsory for all institutions, and possibly also the PRES • But these external surveys might not be an accurate picture of how the GEES community would like to present itself

  12. KIS plus Alongside KIS, institutions will have to provide other information (KIS plus). But institutions may also want to provide information in standard form for applicants other than 18 year old UK school leavers. (HEFCE debate is ongoing on this)

  13. KIS plus (plus) But should we ask all GEES departments to agree on further types of information they would wish to make available in standard form? Might this be a standard aspect of our brand as subjects? (Note the context of a withdrawal of government funding and the message that we are not ‘priority’ subjects)

  14. Discussion Are there further pieces of information that colleagues feel would be useful for potential students to receive about GEES subject areas? What might such pieces of information be? Could we get agreement – e.g. through the RGS of Heads of Department meetings – to introduce these as standard?

More Related