DRAFT
Stirling Institutional Research Network (SIReN): Inaugural Meeting
Date: 5th May 2006
Venue: Airthrey Castle, room 24
Time: 1230-1400 hrs
Present: Mike Osborne, Ginny Saich, Alison Swanson, Vivien Swanson, Ruth Watkins, Derek Young
Apologies: Adelina Broadbridge, Shona Hamilton {PG}, Tikus Little, Jane McKie, James Muir, Iddo Oberski, Carolyn Rowlinson,
Notes:
The historical context for the establishment of SIReN was explained by Mike Osborne, identifying its linkage to, and relevance for, the ongoing educational development review working group, institutional audit by the QAA in autumn 2006, (and subsequent inclusion within Stirling’s reflective analysis), research-led teaching and progression towards evidence-based decision-making.
In particular, the Network was perceived as a means of developing expertise on our own institution and its constituent members and processes in order to benefit the University in its enhancement engagements and decision-making processes for policy and practice. In the medium term the Network might contribute to supporting and facilitating research-informed approaches to teaching (and the whole student experience). In the longer term the Network might support developments for engaging staff in scholarly activities relating to elements of their professional practice (such as pedagogy).
It was noted that Jim McGeorge (Director or Planning) has been made aware of SIReN and is interested in the primary data analysis that SIReN members might undertake.
A document listing some examples of other institutions undertaking institutional research was tabled along with a draft list of SIReN participants. It was agreed that the latter would be circulated electronically to allow individuals to edit/update their entries (and the former to facilitate access to links).
Action: Ginny Saich
A wide-ranging discussion centred largely around the following issues:
· The ‘problem’ of (and need for) gaining access to basic data sets and alternate means of achieving this through existing mechanisms and potentially new developments/initiatives;
· The need for demarcation of responsibility for analysis of data between academic units (such as SIReN and academic departments) and administrative units (such as Registry).
· Recognition that many established, well researched tools/instruments exist for re-use at Stirling, such as those available from, and used by, the American Association of Institutional Research (AIR), European Association of Institutional Research (EAIR), and research projects (such as the TLRP project SOMUL).
· The need to identify what we want to know, why we want to know it and what we will do about it once we have the relevant information – ensuring that all data collection has a purpose and is subsequently followed up. This led to specific consideration of:
· The need to make better use of existing routine data collection eg. module/programme evaluations and student feedback in general (to ‘close the feedback loop’).
· The possibility of undertaking comparative analysis across modules, in order to identify potentially ‘problematic’ modules eg. consistently high attrition, low grades (where students are otherwise scoring highly) and/or poor student feedback
· Opportunities to collate ‘useful’ data eg. as part of the online registration process and/or induction and/or first log on to the university computer system. (Online PDP was discussed as a potential avenue but was dismissed since it is neither compulsory nor credit bearing and is thus not likely to engage all students). Accessing data from all new students was seen as a priority (identifying linkage with student recruitment and admission).
The following specific areas for initial potential research/activity emerged from the above discussions:
· more effective use, and in-depth analysis of module/programme questionnaires (possibly review of content to ensure useful data is being obtained)
· collation of data on what students think they will do at University and what they actually do:
· collation of data from all new students on entry relating to their expectations of the diverse elements of the university experience, including academic content, personal/skills development, career prospects, student life/finances/employment, PDP, co-curricular activities, non-curricular elements
· follow-up data collection at the end of the first year to elicit actual experiences of the above, to identify if expectations were met and if not what changes might have enabled them to be met. Any intention to transfer (between disciplines, modes of study), take a leave of absence and/or leave etc. could be further explored by follow-up interviews to elicit further details/rationale.
· Linkage of the above data to student characteristics eg. gender, age, ethnicity etc. could also prove helpful, given the University’s requirements under equal opportunities/disability discrimination/racial equality legislation.
· The above data could be used to inform pre-entry guidance and marketing information, induction and on-course first year support (to meet realistic expectations).
· Staff expectations and experiences of what students do at University might provide an informative and useful counterpoint to data from students.
· At the other end of the spectrum, another area of interest would be transition to work and it was identified that links with the Alumni office would be beneficial for such research in order to access students a year after graduation for data collection. The problem of poor return rates for such research was identified.
It was agreed that, initially at least, research should focus on the first year. It was identified that:
· such research would have synergies with ongoing research being undertaken at Stirling (such as the SOMUL project and ESCalate research on the first year experience)
· it was of general interest to most members of the Network (due to its wide coverage of numerous issues)
· it would contribute to Stirling’s engagement with QAA enhancement themes of: the first year, PDP/employability and research-teaching linkages
· this work could potentially contribute towards engagement with future QAA themes of progression and retention, and the inclusive curriculum.
Membership of the Network was discussed. It was agreed that, to enhance the effectiveness of the group and progress some of the issues and potential problems identified (eg. access to relevant data and expertise), the following individuals/units would be approached to nominate an individual for membership of the Network:
· Mark Wilkinson – Student Support Services
· Jim McGeorge – Registry/Planning and Registry/Student Recruitment & Admissions
At a later date it may be appropriate to seek input from SUSA, although this may need further thought/discussion
Action: Mike Osborne/Ginny Saich
It was identified that the Network would need to have support from senior management to achieve its objectives. Professor Neil Keeble (Deputy Principal for Learning and Teaching) and Professor John Field (Deputy Principal for Research) have both already indicated their support for this development. In order to maintain momentum, however, it was agreed that a report should be submitted to the next meeting (in June 2006) of the Educational Development Review Working Group (chaired by Professor Keeble).
Action: Ginny Saich/Mike Osborne
Future reporting routes were considered. Suggestions included reports on relevant developments/findings from the Network being sent to the institutional Quality Enhancement Committee (on which every academic department is represented) and/or the institutional Student Experience Committee (for non-academic issues).
It was agreed that these proposed developments would need to be well thought out and that there should be no rush to implementation. Plans should be developed over the coming 6-12 months, enabling the required infrastructure/agreements/membership to be put into place.
It was agreed to set a date for the next meeting after feedback had been obtained from Professor Keeble.
Action: Ginny Saich
G.S. (05.05.06)
1