Self Portraits and Perpetual Motion: The Student Experience of Informed Choice and Feedback

1. Self Portraits and Perpetual Motion: The Student Experience of Informed Choice and Feedback Jennie Blake, Research Associate Patricia Clift, Teaching and Learning Manager University of Manchester Val Wass University of Keele HEARing Student Voices: developing the pedagogy to reflect achievements across the student experience This project has been funded by the 2009 NTFS Projects Funding strand

2. Project Background • The University of Manchester is a HEAR trial institution • Increasing emphasis on personalisation of learning • New structures for advising students • Poor NSS results on assessment and feedback • Emphasis on volunteering, citizenship and leadership development • Lack of pedagogy for the HEAR at a formative stage

3. Research Questions • The project aims to research how: • Students make educational choices within differently structured curricula • Employment aspirations influence choice • Student centred strategies can develop the HEAR process • Formative student assessment can influence career management

4. Project Outline • Stage one: • Pilot focus group (~10 students, mixed disciplines, PASS leaders) • Main focus groups in three contrasting disciplines: English and American Studies, Pharmacy, and Geography (~ 10 students per discipline) • Transcription and analysis • Stage two: • Mixed discipline focus groups • Individual Interviews • Transcription and analysis • Staff focus group/consultation • Theoretical framework

5. Project Outline • Stage 3: Action research with students as co-researchers: • To develop models for formative HEARs • To develop feedback models • Project Academic Lead – Prof. Val Wass, Manchester Medical School, National Teaching Fellow • Project Manager – Patricia Clift, Teaching and Learning Support Office • Research Associate – Jennie Blake, Teaching and Learning Support Office • External Evaluator – Rob Ward, Centre for Recording Achievement

6. The Methodology • Questions • Structure of questions allowed for definition of topics to be community based • After definition was established, personal examples were solicited, helping keep everyone on the same page. • Definitions, because explicit, could be compared • Compare definition (or ideal) to reality.

7. The Questions* • When you hear the words “informed choice”, what comes to mind? • Tell the story of the last curricula choice you made. • What resources do you use to make curricula choices? • What resources you need to make an informed curricula choice? • Describe what you think of when you hear the words “feedback”. • Do you ever use feedback from a prior event to make a choice? • What would make feedback a more useful tool for choice? • Where do you see yourself a year/two years after leaving university? • Do you make curricula choices based on career goals? • Do you feel your experiences are typical of someone in your degree programme? • What resources do you wish were provided for you? • Which of these is the most important? • Is there anything we missed?

8. Methodology Part II • Focus Groups • Can allow for a “safe” space for conversation to happen (Kitzinger, 1994) • Aids in recruitment for action research as it bonds the group together with a common goal *(Chiu 2003) • Allowed for observation of dialogue between students • Mixed discipline and pure discipline focus groups allow us to compare internal degree conversations • Individual Interviews • Used to triangulate data and enrich themes • Used to help deal with recruitment issues** • Used to allow greater student participation

9. The Participants

10. Results Outline • The areas of choice, resources, and feedback seemed to be high anxiety areas for most of the participants, very few were completely comfortable, and all wanted an opportunity to work with others to improve • We’re going to speak about the student experience as a journey, one that might work better with a map, some sort of engine to combat inertia and someone to help figure out where to go next. • The issues are complex and interwoven • However, by focusing on a few areas (structure of feedback, academic advisor roles, personal development) we can hope to make an impact • Most of the results are differences of degree as opposed to presence or absence • Which means that the implications of the study can apply to all areas, as there is always another step to take • There does seem to be a place for a formative document based on the HEAR • And genuine interest in helping the University and this project to create one

11. Blank map • Independent choice • Resources • Communication • Goals “No one’s ever said, ‘Look, here’s the underlying structure of what we want to give you, this is why we’re doing all of this...’ That’s never happened.” (efg1) No. This is what we get in our seminars, ‘Is everyone okay with the essays then?’...Because we have to be, don’t we? What else are we going to say? (efg1)

12. Perpetual Motion—how feedback stalls out • Definitions • A Process • A Purpose I mean, I know it’s quite preliminary, ‘cause they haven’t done feedback forever at uni, but, um... I think at the moment we’re getting...what was wrong and less of what you could do (mfg2p) And it means, I feel like as I’m writing these essays that are going towards my degree this year, I’m writing them with this blind idea of what’s a good essay.(efg1)

13. Self-Portrait • Isolation • Independence • Community and Clarity So if someone who just knew, someone who knows who you are and kind of, I know it’s much too big, there are too many people at university... (efg1) Yeah, we don’t really get... It would be possible to do the whole..go through the whole semester, and no one would have a clue whether you were doing well, or anything. You could go through the whole semester and not... know anything at the end of it.” (mfg1p)

14. Indications for improvement/Areas for further investigation • Use the formative HEAR as a platform for conversation and planning between academic advisors and students • Create “plans” between and inside modules that allow students to see the skill set they are expected to learn and the feedback to expect. • Devise ways to move feedback “beyond” the mark. • Further investigation into structures that encourage conversation and community building between students and staff • Explicitly react to student feedback and support their use of feedback to improve skills