Engaging students through partnership

1. Engaging students through partnership Colin Bryson, Ruth Furlonger, Olivia Petie, Fae Rinaldo-Langridge and Katie Dodds colin.bryson@ncl.ac.ukruth.furlonger@ncl.ac.uk

2. The Challenge • Combined Honours at Newcastle • Diverse and complex – apparently incoherent and so individual • Missing sense of identity, inclusion and belonging • Dissatisfied and disengaged • But few resources and so difficult to influence the curriculum • So how to address?

3. 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) • SE is dynamic and fluid – fragile and resilient • SE is multidimensional, includes student’s whole lives • Includes the past and the future

4. Key influences on engagement • Student expectations and perceptions – match to the ‘personal project’ and interest in subject • Sufficient challenge and appropriate workload • Degrees of choice, autonomy, risk, and opportunities for growth and enjoyment • Trust relationships • Communication and discourse • A sense of belonging and community • Supportive social networks • Opportunities for, and participation in activities and roles – to enable ownership, self-assurance and self-efficacy But also negatives – alienating forces (Mann, 2001), sense of exclusion (Hockings, 2010)

5. Holistic student engagement strategy • Follow the principles of SE • Work with the students • Crucial that the students co-owned the problems, solutions and changes made…

6. Partnership • Diverse origins – both pedagogic and political • Such virtuous principles – democratic, ethical, model of citizenship • Antithesis of consumer model • The right ethos, values and beliefs – mutuality and community • Linked concepts • Arnstein (1969) - Ladder of participation • Pateman (1969) Continuum of Industrial Democracy

7. Initiatives on partnership • Student as producer (Neary and Winn, 2009) • Students at L&T champions/change agents/consultants (e.g. Exeter, Birmingham City) • Co-designers of the curriculum (Bovill, 2013) • QAA Chapter on SE (2012) • University policies and practices (Van derVelden, 2012) • Partnership agreements in Scotland

8. Student Representation • Evolving to empower student reps • Student-led, staff support (student-staff committee). • Engine room for ideas. • Working groups – student chosen agendas. • Constituency format – consistency. • SSC Success stories: • CH week • Co-design of modules • Mentoring

9. Mentoring • Building a community • Social integration – lead role in induction. • Group dynamics – time with fellow CH students. • Linking to other schemes – PASS and SSC links. • Mentors as partners • Student designed and staff support – fortnightly feedback meetings. • Opportunity to recruit and train future intake of mentors.

10. Combined Honours Society • Important role in building our CH community. • No staff involvement, committee of students. • Links up with other schemes and staff on CH Awards – rewarding outstanding contributions to CH.

11. PASS (Peer Assisted Study Support) • Our Scheme: • Informal drop-in sessions in the Combined Honours common room. • 6 PASS advisors trained in academic writing. • Student Coordinator. • Successes: • Relieves pressure for mentors to give academic advice. • Increased CH identity- more roles for student engagement. • Benefits to PASS advisors themselves.

12. Graduate Development Modules • Opportunity for academic credit: • About 50% of people in roles are on the modules. • Frees up time to dedicate to role and allows them to take on ambitious projects: (i.e. curriculum design – create a new interdisciplinary module). • Other projects have included redesigning Post-application Open Day and organising the Combined Honours Conference.

13. Reflections on the CH Strategy • Virtuous outcomes: • Individual benefits – improves graduateness and confidence. • Better student experience – and more attractive to incoming students due to community feel. • Achievement – academic grades have continued to climb alongside scheme successes.

14. Any questions?

15. Activity – over to you… What opportunities could you introduce in the area you work that would promote engagement and partnership? • How are you going to put these into practice? • You should aim to include as many students as possible…

16. Challenges and issues • Getting past pseudo-participation (measuring and evaluating that it is really happening) • The role of the student union (and levels where this works) • Can we create opportunities for all students (and are attractive to all?) • Ensuring participation as it cannot be obligatory • How does the staff role change? • This approach creates an unpredictable and unknown future - the nature of co-creation

17. To meet regularly to discuss SE.   To involve and work with students in partnership An early goal was to develop a concept map and set of principles that underpin the promotion of SE To establish an annual conference drawing together leading edge work on SE - and to feed into publication through journals and books. (Next conference– Sept 2014, Manchester) To gain funding to support these events and activities. To create a bank of useful resources for us to share. To facilitate communication between us (web, email network etc) http://raise-network.ning.com/