The student voice in higher education curriculum
design: is there value in listening? A case study.
Simon Brooman, Sue Darwent and Alexandra Pimor
Liverpool John Moores University, School of Law
Author information
Simon Brooman
/Sue Darwent
/Alex Pimor
/Principal Lecturer in Law and Learning Support Manager / Research Assistant / Lecturer in Law /
Liverpool John Moores University / Liverpool John Moores University / Liverpool John Moores University /
/ / /
0151 231 3706 / Telephone. / 0151 231 3616 /
Short abstract
Staff-led evidence-based interventions to encourage attendance, participation and active learning on a poorly performing second-year law module did not achieve expected outcomes. Student views, collected through researcher-led focus groups, elicited opinions and challenged staff assumptions toinform furthercurriculum revision. Subsequent modifications resulted insustained improvements in pass rate and mean marks.
Outline
Problem
Module re-design is usually tutor-led and such developments are often successful.Contrastingly, some writersendorse the empowerment of students as co-creators in course design (Cook-Sather, 2010; Mihans, Long & Felten, 2008); however, evidence of the effectiveness of such interventions is ‘conspicuously absent’ (Trowler & Trowler, 2010). In the School of Law, a second-year undergraduate module, European Union Law, suffering from low student performance and engagement, offered the opportunity to compare a tutor-led redesign process with one that included greater student involvement.
Method
Research was approached from a pragmatic paradigm (Cresswell, 2007), and intended to describe students’ perceptions of their learning experience and provide some explanation of the findings. An initial staff-led re-design was evaluated using standard methods as well as a customised questionnaire, and a divergence between staff and student views was discovered.
Subsequently, a semi-structured interview schedule guidedresearcher-led focus group discussion to explore the discrepancies. Eleven focus groups of 3-7 participants were held after completion of the final assessment, but before results were known, to avoid views being compromised.
A classic analysis strategy was used (Kreuger & Casey, 2009). Transcribed recordings entered into NVivo were explored and categorised. A descriptive summary of responses from each group allowed comparisons across groups and overarching themes were developed using Smith and Fletcher’s (2001) framework.
Findings
1. Failure of basic structural elements of the curriculum
1.1 Timing of lectures and seminars
‘...the seminars were right at the end of the period of lectures and I didn’t understand anything till we had our seminars. I went through all of the lectures just not understanding anything.’ (8C, 1, 27-8)
1.2 Workload
Providing a wealth of information in the workbook led to students feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information. They could not distinguish the essential elements. The volume of reading for seminars was also commented upon by all groups.
1.3 Resources
Each commented on frustration in trying to follow and pull together different strands of information in lectures - slides, commentary and workbook - and struggled to assimilate them into a cohesive whole.
2.Failure of the learning process
Attendance, language and cultural differences, approachabilityof staff and engagement with the subject impacted on the learning process. While the structural elements may have been discovered through existing evaluation mechanisms, student comments illuminated staff assumptions and challenged their interpretation of the educational literature.
Evidence emerged of emotional responses which would not have been evident through pre-existing module feedback routes. The focus groups provided an acceptable channel for discharging negative emotion, as well as empowering participants to exert an influence on future developments.
Links to the chosen strand (students as partners)
Despite initial staff interventions being evidence-based, significant progress in module performance was only evident after students were involved in the curriculum design process,
whichforced a more detailed analysis and provided new insights. The staff-student alliance was mediated by a researcher: this allowed unfettered expression and the development of (asynchronous) transactional dialogue ‘that rarely unfolds between faculty members and undergraduate students’ (Cooke-Sather, 2010; Zepke & Leach, 2010). ‘Enhanced student involvement’, rather than more intensive co-creation approaches, may resonate withcurrent student perceptions that they are paying for an expert-led educational package.
Keywords
Staff-student collaboration, module redesign, student voice, second year
Audience
Thisposter is aimed at educators and pedagogic researchers interested in enhancing the student experience by involving students in curriculum development. We suggest a method by which students can be placed closer to the heart of module re-design. The strategy enables gathering more valuable information than that presented by common feedback techniques such as questionnaires and surveys.
Key messages
- Enhanced student involvement in reviewing and developing the presentation and content of module curriculum benefits staff, current and future students and the institution.
- A third party, in this case a pedagogic researcher, who has no other academic relationship with the students, can help to facilitate open dialogue with the students and act as a mediator between staff and student views.
- Asynchronous transactional dialogue between staff and students is effective.
Links to HEA work
The research study presented on this poster is an extended but integral part of ‘The Forgotten Year: Tackling the Sophomore Slump’ National Teaching Fellowship Scheme project funded by HEA and led by Dr Clare Milsom at Liverpool John Moores University.
Research on the student experience in higher education has been overwhelmingly focused on the first year, (e.g. Tinto 1975, Astin, 1984). Preliminary analysis of institutional data on student performance at Liverpool John Moores University discovered a dip in performance in the second year, mirroring research in the USA (Gump 2007, Sanchez-Leguelinel 2008), that has identified a phenomenon referred to as the ‘sophomore slump’. This project ‘The Forgotten Year: Tackling the ‘Sophomore Slump’ aims to investigate Level 2 performance dip as an aspect of the student experience that has been neglected in UK research.
Research foci:
- Examination of the large scale institutional data sets has characterised the slump in performance of the Level 2 students in 20 programmes across the University.
- The student-facing aspect of the research adopts qualitative methodologies to develop an understanding of the student experience of the second year and to illuminate the findings from the quantitative analysis of student record data.
This submission is part of a £200,000 NTFS project; ‘The Forgotten Year? Tackling the Sophomore Slump’ funded by the National Teaching Fellowship Scheme and administered by the Higher Education Academy. The project is running from 2010 to 2013.