Title of presentation

pucefakeAI and Robotics

Nov 30, 2013 (3 years and 11 months ago)

123 views

latrobe.edu.au

CRICOS Provider 00115M

Title of presentation

Name of presenter

Title of presenter

School / Faculty / Division

xx Month 201x


Redefining engagement;

Students as partners, shapers & leaders of a 21
st

century
student experience


Ngaere

Blair, Director, Student Enrichment

La Trobe University

HE Academy Conference, 04 July 2013

2

La Trobe University

About La Trobe University


Established in 1967 as a progressive alternative to established institutions.


Strong ethos on social justice, access and equity and regional community.
engagement.


Multi
-
campus, with main campus in the northern suburbs of Melbourne and smaller
campuses spread across regional Victoria (largest regional provider in the state).


Over 33,000 students enrolled with 19,000 at main campus in Melbourne and
between 200
-

4,000 at regional campuses.


Over 17% of students are from low socio
-
economic backgrounds. 46% are first in
their families to attend higher education.


Nearly 5,000 international students, mainly drawn from India, China, South America,
UK and USA.



3

La Trobe University

4

La Trobe University

Main campus, 19,000 students

Shepparton campus, 200 students

Bendigo campus, 4,000 students

Wodonga campus, 800 students

Mildura campus, 200 students

5

La Trobe University

A changing sector

Review of Australian Higher Education in 2008;


Increase enrolments of low socio
-
economic students to 40% by 2020 (currently
15%).


Increase all enrolments by 30% by 2020.


Remove caps on places and increase competition between Unis.


Make explicit that student satisfaction and student experience will be used as
quality indicators and data will be publicly available.


Re
-
introduction of ‘student amenities’ fees allowing student unions to rebuild.

But then....


Demand from international students has declined (high $AU).


In May 2013, Govt announced funding cuts of over $2Bil.


Current Govt likely to lose September election.


MOOCS!


6

La Trobe University

A 21
st

century student experience

It can be argued....


The role Universities play in the lives of their students is changing.


University is just one of a portfolio of commitments.


Students have constant access to information, ideas and opinions.


A degree no longer sets graduates apart.


Students, parents and employers question the relevance, value and quality of higher
education.


In a 21
st

century student experience ‘
do we have students, or are they customers,
stakeholders, constituents, or (indeed) products?’


(
Birnbaum
, 1998)


7

La Trobe University

How should we view our students?

As Customers?


Does this mean we are expected to ‘pander’ to student satisfaction?
(Winter and
O’Donohue
,
2012; Mark, 2013).

However...


‘Customers are no longer viewed as passive recipients, but as active participants in
service delivery and co
-
producers of the services they receive’
(Mark, 2013).


Co
-
producers/Co
-
creators?


Digital knowledge; students can now source and shape content, collaborate, and
provide and expect instant feedback
(Sternberg, 2012; Gregory et al, 2010).


‘The key to dealing with students evolving learning styles, considerable, but
inconsistent, technological expertise and increasing diversity [is in] a renegotiation
of the student/teacher relationship in which both parties are recognised as ‘co
-
creators’ of knowledge’.
(Sternberg, 2012)


8

La Trobe University

How should we view our students?

As Partners?


Students are often the best change agents with the most knowledge to offer on
what effective learning experiences look like.


'Engaging students as partners in change also means tolerance for multiple
perspectives, different talents, and diversity. [We] cannot be certain of what specific
talents, knowledge, and skills will be of value, and globalization has expanded the
market'
(Zhao, 2011).

All of the above?


Student inhabit
each of these roles
-

and others
-

at some point and to varied extents
(
Sharrock
, 2013).


Partnerships, collaborations and customer relationships are all invested with heavy
expectations, unrealistic demands and disappointments, but they can also be
mutually beneficial, rewarding, dynamic, and constructive when given the
opportunity.



9

La Trobe University

What makes a good student experience?


Quality courses, engaging teaching and career pathways.


Interaction with teaching staff and discussion on course and career choice.


Flexible learning spaces, library and IT support.


An accessible and sophisticated online learning environment.


Responsive administrative and student support services.


Being treated as an individual and valued as a student.


Physical places and facilities that allow informal socialisation.


Social and peer support and the opportunity to build learning communities.


Access to extra
-
curricular activities such as clubs and societies.


A welcoming and inclusive environment.


Engaging with difference and diversity.


Challenging and relevant academic experiences.




(
Kuh
, 2005; Coates, 2009; Tinto, 1987,
Pascarella

&
Terenzini
, 2005)

10

La Trobe University

Why does the student experience matter to Universities?


Integral to

high quality teaching and learning


Widening participation; more students coming with varied backgrounds and
preparedness, but those who feel supported will thrive


Public policy; in a d
emand
-
driven system, students have more choice

and are
encouraged to ‘shop around’


International student market becoming

more competitive (plus high $AU)


Students talk… social media platforms such as Twitter,
Facebook
,
Pinterest
,
StalkerSpace
….these can be powerful aids or hindrances to our reputation


Quality Assurance ‘places a renewed emphasis on student outcomes and the
quality of the student experience’.


Universities have a role to play in the education of knowledgeable, adept, and
well rounded future leaders who will be faced with growing social, cultural,
environmental and economic challenges

11

La Trobe University

Measuring the student experience

Institutional tools


Retention Rates.


Participation Rates.


Exit Interviews.


Student Services Satisfaction.


Completion Rates.


Alumni Surveys.


Communication Channels/Feedback.


Student Cohort profiles (e.g., age, residency,
SES, ATAR, equity).


Focus groups.


Market research.

National benchmarking tools


Australasian Universities Survey of Student
Engagement.


University Experience Survey.


First Year in Higher Education Survey.


TEQSA reporting (QA).


Australian Graduate Survey (Employment
Outcomes & Course Experience).


Beyond Graduation Survey.


It’s your data. You have an inherent right to it.

It should be used first to help you in your learning
journey.’



(
Milliron
, 2012
)

12

La Trobe University

The project (a work in progress)

Aim:

To engage students as partners in determining how the University values and
prioritises the La Trobe student experience.


Process:

1.
Identify a methodology that groups student experience concepts by a theme that
is logical, underpinned by student engagement theory, and for which we are likely
to have evidence.

2.
Consultation with students to identify what aspects of the student experience
most matters to them.

3.
Review existing data sources that provide evidence of student’s outcomes,
participation, satisfaction and engagement within those themes.

4.
Develop a ‘dashboard’ that demonstrates how the University performs against the
identified indicators.

5.
Engage students in further consultation on how to improve on low performing
areas through a series of student experience ‘summits


13

La Trobe University

Framing the student experience

Sense of Connectedness


Institutional identification


Student
-
Staff relationships


Student
-
Student relationships

Sense of Capability


Community participation


Task and role clarity


A
cademic competence

Sense of Resourcefulness


University
-
life interface


Physical environment


Systems access and navigation

Sense of Purpose


Disciplinary engagement


Vocational direction


Personal development

Sense of
Culture


Clear values


Lizzio’s

‘5 Senses’ Model (2006)

14

La Trobe University

Engaging students as partners

15

La Trobe University

16

La Trobe University

Reporting on results


0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
LTU Students
LTU Staff
Benchmark
Very little/some
Quite a bit/Very much
Lizzio

theme: Vocational Direction/Sense of Purpose


Acquiring job related or work related skills or knowledge
(AUSSE 2011)

17

La Trobe University

Framing the student experience

Sense of Connectedness


Institutional identification


Student
-
Staff relationships


Student
-
Student relationships

Sense of Capability


Community participation


Task and role clarity


A
cademic competence

Sense of Resourcefulness


University
-
life interface


Physical environment


Systems access and navigation

Sense of Purpose


Disciplinary engagement


Vocational direction


Personal development

Sense of
Culture


Clear values


Lizzio’s

‘5 Senses’ Model (2006)

18

La Trobe University

What is important to students?


Fitting in and making friends

Feeling challenged & engaged

19

La Trobe University

What is important to students?


Cheap car parking

Access to study resources

20

La Trobe University

What is important to students?


Cheap car parking

Access to study resources

Accomplishing goals

Thank you

latrobe.edu.au

CRICOS Provider 00115M

Ngaere

Blair

Director, Student Enrichment

La Trobe University

AUSTRALIA

E:
n.blair@latrobe.edu.au


T: + 61 3 9479 3425


References

Birnbaum
, R. (1998),
How colleges work; the cybernetics of academic organization and leadership
. Jossey Bass, San Francisco, (pp.225
-
226)

Coates, H., Radloff, A., James, R., Krause, K. (2011).
Report on the Development of the University Experience Survey.
Canberra, Australia:
Commonwealth of Australia. Retrieved from:
www.deewr.gov.au/HigherEducation/Policy/Pages/UniversityExperienceSurvey.aspx

de Lourdes Machado, M., Brites, R., Magalhães, A. and Sá, M. J. (2011). Satisfaction with higher education: critical data for

st
udent development.
European Journal of Education
, 46(3),

415
-
432.


Gregory, S., Gregory, B., Campbell, M., Farley, H., Sinnappan, S., Kennedy
-
Clark, S., Craven, D., Murdoch, D., Lee M.J.W., Wood,

D., Grenfell, J., Thomas,
A., Smith, K., Warren, I., Dreber, H., McKeown, L., Ellis, A., Hillier, M., Pace, S., Cram, A., Hay, L., Grant, S., Matthews,

C.

(2010).
Australian higher
education institutions transforming the future of teaching and learning through 3D virtual worlds.
Paper presented at proceedings ascilite Sydney
2010. Retrieved from
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney10/procs/Gregory
-
full.pdf

Kuh, G., Kinzie, J., Schuh, J. H., Whitt, E. (2005).
Assessing conditions to enhance educational effectiveness; the inventory for student engagement and
success.
San Francisco, America: Jossey
-
Bass.

Lizzio, A. (2006).
Designing an orientation and transition strategy for commencing students
, Griffith University First Year Experience Project

Mark, E. (2013): Student satisfaction and the customer focus in higher education.
Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management
, 35:1,
2
-
10

Milliron, D., (2012). An open to letter to students; you are the game changer in next
-
generation learning.

EDUCAUSE Review,
47(4) . Retrieved from:
www.educause.edu/ero/article/open
-
letter
-
students
-
youre
-
game
-
changer
-
next
-
generation
-
learning


Sternberg
J. (2012): ‘It's the end of the university as we know it (and I feel fine)’: the Generation Y student in higher education dis
cou
rse.
Higher
Education Research & Development
, 31:4, pp.571
-
583

Tinto, V. (1993).
Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and cures of student attrition
. Chicago: University of Chicago Press


Winter
, R.P., O’Donohue, W. (2012). Academic identity tensions in the public university; which values really matter?
Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management
, 34(6), pp. 565
-
573


Zhao
, Y. (2011). Students as change partners: A proposal for educational change in the age of globalisation.
Journal of Educational Change
, 12,
pp.267

279