1 / 18

Improving transition for Combined Honours students through a holistic engagement approach

Improving transition for Combined Honours students through a holistic engagement approach. Colin Bryson, Alex Roper, Hannah Lyons, Stacey Duggan, Grace Cooper and Helen Thomas Combined Honours Newcastle University. Fostering student engagement.

matsu
Télécharger la présentation

Improving transition for Combined Honours students through a holistic engagement approach

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. Improving transition for Combined Honours students through a holistic engagement approach Colin Bryson, Alex Roper, Hannah Lyons, Stacey Duggan, Grace Cooper and Helen Thomas Combined Honours Newcastle University

  2. Fostering student engagement The Australian evidence (FYE, McInnis, Krause, inter alia) The US evidence (NSSE, Pascarella & Terenzini, Tinto) My own evidence (Bryson, Hand, Hardy)

  3. Conception of SE 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).

  4. To foster SE - aims Combat the alienating forces (Mann, 2001) Academic and social integration (Tinto, 1993) Belonging (Kember et al, 2001) Community (Wenger, 1999; Tinto, 2006; McInnis, 2005; Perry, 1997)

  5. Key influences on engagement(Bryson & Hand) Student expectations and perceptions – match to the ‘personal project’ (Dubet) Balances between challenge and appropriate workload Degrees of choice, autonomy, risk, and opportunities for growth and enjoyment Trust relationships Communication and discourse The holistic approach – transition pedagogies (Kift)

  6. Issues in this case – less than good experiences and perceptions • Lack of support from staff • No sense of belonging or identity • Poor academic and social integration into subjects and degree • Lowest NSS score!

  7. The nature of degree • An almost unique path through modules • A non-shared curriculum experience • But could not be done through the curriculum or classroom….

  8. A slightly different approach • Co-determination - Not just listening to the student voice but empowering – co-ownership of the agenda and the implementation • Making linked interventions • Evaluation and more interventions

  9. Empowering the student voice • Indirect – lots of feedback gathering • Direct – new student presentation system • Student led • Wider student forums

  10. Interventions • Changes to the degree – minor and major • Alternatives to personal tutor support • Redesign of induction • Building community – reinvigorated society, common room • Peer mentor system – the flagship

  11. Peer mentor scheme • Students wanted a transition mentor scheme not peer assisted learning • Recruited one mentor per ten first years • Trained • Had pre-induction advisory and socialising role • Major roles in induction week and weekly meetings thereafter

  12. Two different systems evolved • Most mentors faded into background after week 1 of term – perceived they were not needed – 85% of mentees did not participate after induction week • But 6 mentors had far higher impact – had 60-90% of mentees participating in one way or other The latter group took responsibility through ownership (became self-reinforcing)

  13. Did it all work? Gathered lots of evaluation Mentor system a success – 80% of students drew on it Other interventions well received These approaches seen as exemplars by rest of the university ….BUT

  14. Some limits… Full buy–in – 10% of the students Those that really get involved 10% of students participate 60% make use to some extent – and appreciate it more or less (but don’t feel part of a community) 20% at best indifferent or oblivious And involvement in some aspects – giving , social events etc remains problematic

  15. So back to engagement Some students show engagement to the programme aspects – relationships and dialogue, even discourse Others are clearly engaged enough to be doing well enough in their studies and apparently enjoying their student experience ? – no communication channel

  16. Questions to address (and consider your own context) 1.Where should the focus be for building the sense of belonging and community: University or subject or degree or more local? 2. Consider the model of student (rep) as partner – pro’s, con’s and limits?

  17. More… 3.Is peer mentoring and support an alternative to personal tutoring and learning support (i.e. staff)? 4. Do we need to reach all the first year students or it enough just to offer opportunities?

  18. And more 5.Which students should we prioritise in our fostering student engagement agenda? The disengaged – very challenging! The slightly engaged – big dividends The already engaged – most gratifying…

More Related