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

Jennifer BLAKE[1] (Teaching and Learning Support Office, University of Manchester, UK) -jennifer.blake@manchester.ac.uk

Patricia CLIFT MARTIN (Teaching and Learning Support Office, University of Manchester, UK) - patricia.clift@manchester.ac.uk

Louise WALMSLEY (Teaching and Learning Support Office, University of Manchester, UK) - louise.walmsley@manchester.ac.uk

Valerie WASS(Keele Medical School, Keele University, UK) - v.j.wass@hfac.keele.ac.uk

Abstract:

With the goal of universal higher education and the growth in multiple careers for many there has been significant expansion in the skills and associated strategies that Universities must communicate to students, especially around the employability agenda (Cochrane & Straker, 2005, Ertl et al., 2008)

Resources exist to facilitate informed choice but organization and presentation of resources is essential. Universities must understand which resources are most useful for students to avoid the “paralysis [that] is a consequence of having too many choices.” (Schwartz, 2005). This study uses focus groups and interviews with students in three disciplines with contrasting curricula structures and career paths to discover how students make informed choices, which resources they use and the utility of feedback and resources currently offered. Initial findings show that available resources need to be valid, verified and limited. The interaction between student and university can only be enriched by a deeper comprehension of choice processes and how resources and support can be positioned most effectively. (Foskett & Hemsley-Brown, 2001) This study will highlight resources that students feel contribute to informed choices and to discover what role students and university play in designing and validating resources.

One resource available to students is academic feedback. Feedback can be used by students and faculty to inform choice and provide guidance and as an opportunity for students to develop a sense of their strengths and weaknesses (Hounsell, McCune, Hounsell, & Litjens, 2008). If students are to form portraits of themselves as learners then self-awareness and the ability to recognize aspects of their abilities are essential. Through integrating effective feedback the portrait they develop becomes more accurate. This paper will report on initial findings with regard to the student experience of feedback structures, and its impact on their learning. This research has implications for student learning styles, resource creation, and the use of feedback as a tool students can use to become an active contributor to the learning process.

Keywords: Feedback, choice, student, informed, resources

1. Introduction

The HEARing Student Voices project is a two-year research project funded by the Higher Education Academy as part of the National Teaching Fellowship Scheme Projects (The Higher Education Academy, 2010). All projects funded through this scheme have the involvement of a National Teaching Fellow and have been through a rigorous two-stage bidding process. This project was developed in response to other initiatives nationally and institutionally at the University of Manchester where the project is based.

Manchester is the UK’s largest single site university with over 27,000 undergraduates, nearly 10,000 postgraduates and more than 5,800 academic and research staff. There are more than 500 degree programmes encompassing a wide range of disciplines from Art History to Zoology grouped across 22 schools in four faculties. Although there are many resources available to students to help them navigate the curriculum including tutors, websites, peers, course handbooks and careers guidance, we know little about what they are actually using and what makes the resources that they use useful and valid.

Since 2005, a National Student Survey has been conducted across all universities in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and some in Scotland. The survey is open to all final year undergraduates and asks questions on a range of issues around the student experience, primarily related to their programme and overall satisfaction. One of the areas which is analysed through the survey is ‘assessment and feedback’. In many universities, especially larger ones, this is a weaker area and more work needs to be done to develop a better understanding between staff and students of the assessment process and the opportunities for receiving and using feedback.

In 2007 the University of Manchester embarked on a Review of Undergraduate Education to address these issues. The review encompassed all areas of the student experience from admissions to graduation. One of the recommendations from the Review Task Forces was that the University should be at the forefront of developments surrounding a new national initiative, the Higher Education Achievement Report.

The Higher Education Achievement Report (HEAR) is a UK national initiative currently in the second phase of institutional trials. The HEAR developed from the work of the Burgess Group which was tasked with determining whether the UK degree classification model was broadly fit for purpose, and if there were any changes that needed to be made. The group concluded that the degree classification was fit for purpose but that additional information on the achievement of students over and above the classification and the transcript would be of benefit to students, employers, and postgraduate admissions tutors (Universities UK, 2007). Building on the prior implementation of the European Diploma Supplement (EDS) (European Commission, 2009) the Group proposed that a document be produced which encompassed the EDS requirements but also gave a broader picture of an individual’s achievement within higher education. This document became known as the Higher Education Achievement Report.

The main features of the report that differ from the EDS are an increased level of detail in the academic transcript information, (thesis or project titles, placement information etc) and considerably more information on extra-curricular activities such as volunteering, roles and responsibilities, prizes and awards, and additional training.

Although the HEAR was originally described as a summative document to give additional information over and above the final grades of a student there has been an increasing movement to use the HEAR as a developmental resource to support the academic, personal and career development of students whilst on their course of study. To this end the University of Manchester is also pursuing the production of a formative HEAR which will likely take the form of an extract from the HEAR data-set and will be presented to students and available to their academic tutors. This formative HEAR will be informed by this research project to ensure it meets student needs and enhances the educational process.

2. HEARing Student Voices Project

Throughout their studies students make choices about the academic and non-academic activities that they engage in. Many of these activities support their personal and professional development and help them achieve their career goals in an increasingly competitive job market. We were faced with two dilemmas: How do students across a range of different curricula make career choices and what is the optimum form of feedback which can most usefully support the development of the HEAR format.

The project aims to research how:

●Students make educational choices within differently structured curricula

●Employment aspirations influence choice

●The HEAR can best be designed to meet student needs

●Formative student assessment can influence career development.

Our initial questions are:

●What factors influence student choice of units within the curriculum and what are their preferences for feedback?

●How can a HEAR be best constructed to inform choice and maximise use of feedback?

Phase 1 of the project consists of focus groups and interviews with students and staff with structured questions on defining and making choices, the resources that are used or required for making informed choices, and on defining and using feedback. A better understanding of how students navigate through different contrasting curricula will enhance our approach to curriculum design and development and how we support and advise students as they learn. This phase of the project will be completed by summer 2010.

Phase 2: In this phase of the project students and staff will engage in facilitated action research to explore different models for the presentation and content of a formative HEAR and how it might be used to inform student choices. The results of this project will inform the way the University of Manchester implements the formative HEAR and will be widely disseminated to inform practice at other universities.

This paper focuses on the methodology and framework of Phase 1 of this project. At this time the results are still being analysed therefore only brief findings are presented.

3. Literature Review

Higher education in the UK has seen a great deal of change in the last decade. With the massification of higher education, and the decline of the idea of one job for life, the skills and strategies universities must make explicit to their students have multiplied (Cochrane & Straker, 2005). The economic crisis, and consequent impact on employment, is a pressing issue for those preparing for or currently in the job market. All of these concerns have career and educational implications and the employability agenda is one that requires universities to work toward developing the autonomous learner with transferable skills (Ertl et al., 2008).

However, although it has been recognized that students face increasing pressures to exhibit reflective thinking skills, thoughtful decision-making and the habits of a life long learner (Gosling, 2003), comparatively little research has been done to explore the resources that students use to “navigate” the curriculum and to make career choices through which they develop these skills. Although a number of studies have looked into the motivation behind the choices students make (Breen, 1999; Young, 2000) relatively few have delved into the process that lies behind, and informs the choices—or whether students could be said to be making any sort of “informed” choice at all.

It was evident in at least one study that students were taking the “path of least resistance” in their decision-making and that there was very little forward-planning (Cochrane & Straker, 2005). This lack of method in decision-making has further implications because, although “motivation is a hypothetical construct inferred from and indirectly based on an individual’s behaviour” (Curasi & Burkhalter, 2009, p. 4), and students in different disciplines may describe different motivations for their choices (Breen & Lindsay, 2002), understanding the processes making informed choices could benefit all disciplines. The nature of the discipline with regard to curriculum structure, professional outcomes and available support, and the culture of the learning environment may have a significant impact on the mechanics of student choices as both the goals and the structure of support offered by degree programmes can vary widely.

Understanding how students use resources to make decisions could also be used to inform and enrich personal development planning. As one of the goals of personal development planning is to highlight and hone the “meta-skills in reflection and self-direction” (O'Connell, 2003, p.17 ), better knowledge of the resources that students are currently using could be used to inform meetings with academic advisors, who provide students with academic development advice within their discipline. One of the resources available to university students is feedback. Feedback, both formative and summative, can be used by students and staff as tools for choice and guidance. (Hounsell et. al., 2008). However, to be useful, the feedback must not simply be “constructive and timely” but also assist students to identify areas of improvement and set in place action plans to achieve this; in effect, feedback must not merely justify the mark, but encourage further learning as well (Hounsell et al., 2008; Pitts, 2005). The concept of a feedback loop, which includes the student, advisors, lecturers, and others, and constantly informs and clarifies, could help lighten the burden on the student to be the one to assimilate and understand all of the feedback he or she receives.

Understanding the places students go to for information could help to make the formative HEAR and other feedback more student relevant and help ensure that it is used to help inform future decisions. In looking at how students navigate their choices in curricula, we will be able to devise better tools, like the formative HEAR, to help them. In their literature review of the student experience, Ertl et al. (2008) find that there is a “need to go beyond ‘information transmission’ where students are in passive mode, to involve students actively.” (p. 9). Looking at what resources students use will help maximize the dialogue between teachers and students and, hopefully, help feedback and other assessment feel like less of a bureaucratic process and more a part of student learning (Ertl et al., 2008).

4. Study Methodology

Using focus groups in this study allows us to make the student learning experience the centre of the study and to carefully investigate vocabulary and language use. There was also potential for engagement in the focus groups to foster interest in the Phase 2 action research. We decided to use qualitative methods in this study because the possibilities of in-depth narrative investigation because it was thought that the narrative possibilities of focus groups and interviews would allow us to explore the definitions and culture surrounding choice, feedback, and resources and build theoretical frameworks on which to enhance our understanding of student approaches to navigating the curriculum and reaching appropriate career choices. The qualitative nature of the project also allows us to explore the individual differences and definitions of these topics. Focus groups generate primarily qualitative data and serve as records of the individual members of the group and also of the interactions and reactions of the group as a whole, thus providing a unique snapshot of group opinions and discussions while allowing for individual differences. It is in this way that focus groups differ from the broader category of “group interview” as the focus groups deliberately take into account ‘the explicit use of group interaction’ (Merton, 1987). This emphasis also clearly separates it from individual interviews as the focus group data is equally dependent on the interactions between the participants (Cronin, 2002).

The decision to add interviews in addition to the focus group was taken in order to triangulate the data that had previously been gathered and to ensure saturation of themes. It was felt that the in-depth nature of the interviews might allow for deeper understanding of the context of the data. In addition, as is stated below, recruitment was an issue, and additional interviews were scheduled where recruitment for the focus groups was difficult.

Julius Sim (1998) mentions a number of advantages to focus groups including being an economical way of interviewing a number of different respondents, providing information on the dynamics of a group, encouraging spontaneity, possibly providing a ‘safe’ forum as respondents may not feel pressured to answer every question, and the opportunity for the participants of feel supported by a ‘sense of group membership’ (Sim, 1998). This is valuable to the researcher for a number of reasons, not least of which is the chance to observe a discussion on the underlying assumptions that form the culture of the group being studied. In this study, it means that the students, staff and their experiences are the central reference points for analysis.

We focused on three contrasting curricula within the University of Manchester with structures which potentially impact differently on student choice: (a) Pharmacy: a highly structured programme with a definite career outcome; (b) BA/BSc Geography: a large honours degree programme with a medium level of structure around a mix of core and optional units with no definite career outcome; and (c) BA English, a relatively unstructured honours degree programme with a wide choice of units and no compulsory final year units other than a dissertation. By choosing these contrasting programmes we aim to explore the self-directed learning needs of a diverse range of students in contrasting learning environments and ensure that the findings are generalisable across different curricula structures.

As a first step, questions were formulated from the literature review and piloted with a group of ten second, third, and fourth year students from different disciplines, drawn from students who have already worked with the Teaching and Learning Support Office. This exploratory group met once for 80 minutes. The meeting was recorded, transcribed and cross checked against the literature to ensure that all relevant areas were covered by the question set. After the pilot focus group, only very minor changes were made to the questions (Appendix 1).

Recruitment of student volunteers for the focus groups and individual interviews was done through email recruitment and general information sessions. This method was problematic as the response rate was not high, and it is possible that the participants were self-selecting from strongly motivated students therefore an effort was made to discover whether or not the experiences described by the participants were “typical” experiences in the degree programme. In addition, where response rates for the focus groups were especially low, further individual interviews were scheduled in an effort to get a better picture of the degree programme.