Seeking ways of working in partnership with all students, v - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

Seeking ways of working in partnership with all students, via new forms of co-design and co-ownership of the curriculum

Colin Bryson

TESEP 2017Slide2

Create a network of all those supporting student engagementTo

involve and work with students in partnershipOrganise events (RAISE17– Sept 2017, Manchester)To create a bank of useful resources for us to share.

To disseminate good ideas and practice via our journal and other methods – Student Engagement in Higher Education JournalDevelop and support themes and interests through SIGS –

next Partnership meeting June 22/23, Birmingham To facilitate communication between us (web, email network etc

)

http://www.raise-network.com Slide3

The

‘super-engaged’ on Combined Honours at Newcastle (Bryson, 2014: Understanding and Developing Student Engagement, Routledge)

Characteristics – active, multi-involvement inside and outside the curriculum & the degree (i.e. student involvement, leadership roles, change agents etc.)

Evolved into ‘partnership’

= stronger engagement

TESEP 2017

Partnership as a catalyst for student engagementSlide4

A counter-movement to transactional and consumer models

Principles of respect, reciprocity and responsibility

“We define student-faculty partnership as a collaborative, reciprocal process through which all participants have the opportunity to contribute equally, though not necessarily in the same ways” (Cook-Sather et al, 2014:6)

Epitomises positive values in society

Ethical

Democratic, mutual and activeExemplary

TESEP 2017

The Virtues of PartnershipSlide5

Healey, Flint and Harrington (2014)

A typology of SaP roles, e.g.Consultant to staffCo-designing

Co-researchingChange-agent (e.g. Dunne and Zandstra

, 2011)We can add peer leadership to this…Individual

relationships

TESEP 2017

Partnership Practices –

Model ASlide6

For both students AND staff

TESEP 2017

Benefits of Partnership

Engagement (motivation, in the learning process itself, sense of responsibility, recognition

)

Metacognitive awareness and identity

Enhancement of– active learning, pedagogical intelligence, actual

teaching and classroom experiences Slide7

Lack of inclusivity - opportunities for allSelective investment

Elitist?Reward –wrong incentive vs no incentive Student representation - misfit with this model?Pseudo-partnership

TESEP 2017

A Critique of Model ASlide8

A partnership ethos and culture FOR ALL STUDENTS

Collective and inclusiveThe curriculum offers ‘whole class’ participation

Requiring

Co-ownership of the agenda and process Democratically agreeing important dimensions

Building

student:student (as well as

staff:student)Ensuring all gain benefits

And all ‘feel’ like a partner

Changing identities – LEARNING COLLEAGUES

TESEP 2017

Bringing in Model B Partnership Slide9

Non- participant (designing a module for others to do)

Participant (designing the module before you do it)

Participant (designing the module as you do it)

TESEP 2017Co-designing the curriculumSlide10

Partnership through involvement

, sharing responsibility and some co-deciding

Through

the curriculum Collective, group basedVersions in first year, second year and third year…

TESEP 2017

So what we didSlide11

Scenario- Module where students do a ‘project’ of their choice. The focus is on process, much scope for choice, flexibility and autonomy –

pedagogies of partnershipWhat aspects of a module can we negotiate and agree between students and staff?

TESEP 2017

Activity 1 – issues for co-ownershipSlide12

TESEP 2017

Assessment – deciding the weighting of the components/elements

Assessment – deciding what types of assessments are used (e.g. exam, interview etc

.)

Assessment

– deciding what the criteria should be

Process – format and frequency of ‘classes’

Assessment – deciding what the standards should be (i.e. what is 2.1, 2.2 quality etc.)

Assessment

–deciding when the deadlines should be

Who assesses?

Staff?

Peer assessment

Self?

Content

- deciding what the

content/topics of classes are

Process – mode of staff contact – classes or 1:1

Content – deciding what the learning outcomes are?Slide13

Some don’t like (or want) to be partners:

Disengages them – a sense of frustration as ‘too much risk’ and an unwanted responsibility that did not chime with their aims or valuesMore challenging for (some) students at earlier degree stage (perceived lack of expertise or power) vs less ‘conditioned into compliance’

Problematic to practice

partnership! And are we focussing on the right issues? (foregrounding assessment is problematic)

Tension between democratic principles and ethics;

Collective v Individual Challenges

of scaling upNot as powerful as Model A? Harder to build trust?

But the majority do value partnership – and benefit through stronger engagement and better learning – reaches more…thus more inclusive

TESEP 2017

A Critique of Model BSlide14

Your suggestions

TESEP 2017Other opportunities for model B or at least making Model A more inclusive and accessibleSlide15

Creating a new space Taking project based and enquiry based learning to the limitA 3 – year long module

Making assessment low stakes (assessment as learning)Staff as supporter not assessorBased on building partnership and community

TESEP 2017

What we are doing nextSlide16

An overview of partnership

Not Partnership FullSwansea University, Oct 2016

Model B

Model A

Pseudo-partnership

Pedagogies of partnershipSlide17

A combination of model A and model B – with a prominent place for student representation – legitimation

Working and thinking outside comfort zones, but not too far outside…or too quickly

But it is worth it!

TESEP 2017

Conclusions – Ways Forward