- Slides: 14
QAA Scotland FOCUS ON: Institution-led Review 19 th January 2017 Students as researchers; developing confidence and trust. Libby Curtis Gray’s School of Art, Robert Gordon University.
“There is a subtle, but extremely important, difference between an institution that ‘listens’ to students and responds accordingly, and an institution that gives students the opportunity to explore areas that they believe to be significant to recommend solutions and to bring about the required changes. The concept of ‘listening to the student voice’ – implicitly if not deliberately – supports the perspective of student as ‘consumer’, whereas ‘students as change agents’ explicitly supports a view of the student as ‘active collaborator’ and ‘co-producer’, with the potential for transformation” Dunne, E and Zandstra, R (2011) Students as change agents – new ways of engaging with learning and teaching in higher education National Student Survey Campaign (NSS) - ‘YOU SAID……. . WE DID’
Partnership is discussed as: a process of engagement and not a product or outcome It is a ‘a way of doing things’ Potential tensions: Value of the creative process giving unexpected outcomes and an institutions need to achieve specific metrics Healey, Flint and Harrington (2014), Engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education. Building TRUST through partnership approaches Open dialogue, shared projects, staff and students working together on common goals, transparency for all involved, shared learning.
“underpinning art and design education is an expectation that students will take their own creative development of the subject. They are expected to experiment and explore, producing diverse responses to projects, not right answers” Shreeve, Sims, and Trowler (2010). A kind of exchange’: learning from art and design teaching. Signature pedagogies - (Shulman 2005), • Characterised as ‘pervasive, routine, and habitual’ in their subject context. • Art & Design pedagogies were seen within this context by Shreeve, Sims, and Trowler Continuous critical and reflective dialogue develops attitudes and skills for approaching work that has no defined outcome; the ‘uncertainty’ of outcome being a relevant characteristic that tutoring staff facilitate.
Representation / Consultation • quality assurance • formality and process • mechanisms for consultation and reporting • institutional control School Academic Boards Course Panels • often unconnected or lacks an overview • reactive not always proactive • staff ownership Staff Student Liaison Staff member Student
STUDENT PARTNERS – altering the dynamic Throughout the duration of the work students were placed in varying roles. These were as participant and collaborator, researcher and co-designer, making decisions alongside staff. Shared ownership; informs planning ; collaborative outputs Staff and Student Personal Professional Assessment & Feedback Expectations Development Shared ownership; informs planning ; collaborative outputs Staff member Student
PPD Personal Professional Development • STAFF / STUDENT CHARTER – How can we enhance our expectations of one another ? • ASSESSMENT & FEEDBACK REVIEW – How can we enhance the assessment and feedback experience ? • PPD – How can we improve critical reflection in relation to students professional skills ?
EMPHASIS ON THE STUDENT VOICE Representation And Consultation STUDENTS AS EVALUATORS OF THEIR HE EXPERIENCE (THE STUDENT VOICE) Students offer feedback, views and opinions and are listened to on an institutional basis, in order to build an evidence-base as a basis for enhancement and change. Decisions for action tend to be taken at subject and/or institutional level. EMPHASIS ON THE UNIVERSITY AS DRIVER STUDENTS AS PARTICIPANTS IN DECISIONMAKING PROCESSES Students engage in institutional decision- making, in order to influence enhancement and change. Decisions for action tend to be taken collaboratively with staff and students. EMPHASIS ON THE STUDENT AS DRIVER Integrating students into educational change STUDENTS AS PARTNERS, CO- CREATORS AND EXPERTS Students are collaborative partners in curriculum provision and professional development, in order to enhance staff and student learning. Decisions for action tend to be taken at subject and/or institutional level. STUDENTS AS AGENTS FOR CHANGE Students are collaborative partners in pedagogic knowledge acquisition and professional development, with the purpose of bringing about change. Decisions for action tend to be promoted by students and engaged with at subject and/or institutional level. EMPHASIS ON THE STUDENT ENGAGEMENT A theoretical model for students as change agents (Dunne and Zandstra 2011)
Trust: Developed through project work benefitting the work and learning of both student and staff member. Developed through informal working and open ended discussion positively embracing new outcomes rather than expected outputs. Developed through dialogue that values every person’s input. Developed through recognising publicly every person’s contribution. Developed through consistent and transparent communication of process. Developed through student mentoring and experiential learning of working collaboratively prior to critical events such as ILR.
STUDENT PARTNERS sparqs • Student Partnerships in Quality Scotland • Publicly funded to work with all universities and colleges • www. sparqs. ac. uk sparqs vision: Students are able to make a positive difference to the educational experience in Scotland’s colleges and universities and benefit from this, helping shape the nature of learning and contributing to the success of Scotland’s tertiary education sector.
I L S R PROCESS 3 D DESIGN COMMUNICATION DESIGN FASHION & TEXTILES COMMERCIAL PHOTOGRAPHY PAINTING CONTEMPORARY ART PRACTICE OUTPUTS STUDENT PARTNERS Institution-Led Subject Review • student reflective analysis facilitated by sparqs • students responsibility to determine research process • student responsibility to consult with peers • reflective output determined by student teams
sparqs Reviews are a key interface for student engagement: • • Students as reviewers Students as reviewees “Engaging students in Institution-led Review A practice guide for universities and students’ associations”
‘places value on a creative process that may result in unexpected outcomes’ • The ILSR process itself demands consultation with students regarding their learning experience, and most often this is led, facilitated, and defined by staff. • In this respect the School did not ‘consult’ with its students, it empowered the students to be research-led and driven by their own agenda allowing them to communicate with the School in their chosen format • the student expectations following on from the two projects indicate that an appetite for working collaboratively with staff to both develop enhancement activities and address challenges, will be core to students studies.
REFERENCES • Dunne, E. , & Zandstra, R. (2011). Students as change agents – new ways of engaging with learning and teaching in higher education, University of Exeter/ESCalate/Higher Education Academy Publication, 1 -17. Retrieved 4 th June, 2016, from http: //www. escalate. ac. uk/8064 • Healey, M. , Flint, A. , & Harrington, K. (2014). Engagement through partnership: students as partners in learning and teaching in higher education, Higher Education Academy, 711. Retrieved 4 th June, 2016, from http: //www. heacademy. ac. uk/engagement-throughpartnership-students-partners-learning-and-teaching-higher -education • Shreeve, L. , Sims, E. , & Trowler, P. (2010). ‘A kind of exchange’: learning from art and design teaching. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 125 -138. http: //dx. doi. org/10. 1080/07294360903384269