Category Archives: Uncategorized

Students, consumers, prices, value?

Posted on by

The last few years have seen upheavals in UK higher education. Coupled with apocalyptic visions about the possible future of the sector, we are clearly living in interesting times, where changes in finance, in technology and in students and staff themselves mean that we don’t stand still, but constantly evolve or face extinction.

Those with longer memories would suggest that “twas ever thus”. The growth of universities in industrial towns in the 19th century, The expansion after the Robbins report. The move from a binary system, leading to polytechnics and universities being on the same footing. The growth of private providers. Wherever you sit on an exponential curve, it will always seem to be exponential.

unishop

A key change for us all to grapple with though, is the nature of the “student experience”, and ensuring that our students are not just satisfied in a simplistic customer-supplier relationship, but that they are gaining real long term benefit from their investment in higher education, no matter what kind of student they are.

In an earlier article I referred to the report from Mike Boxall of PA consulting which was proposing a “student deal”, which was more encompassing than the sometimes limited approach that universities take to describing student experience. In the last week Smita Jamdar, of SGH Martineau, has written a blog article on “Price is what you pay, value is what you get“.

In this, Smita looks at the view of the Office of Fair Trading which said ““There are worrying signs the higher education market is not working to promote value for money for students, and this has to change” and considers what this means from a legal perspective.

She identifies three main points:

The first is that there is not necessarily any consensus on what it looks like in the context of tertiary education. Many of those responding to the YouGov poll emphasised employability as key, but it is not clear if students themselves see this as the main benefit. Which? has previously linked value to contact hours and quality/frequency of feedback as well as long term graduate salaries. However, at a conference I attended yesterday, Toni Pearce, President of the NUS, described a focus on contact hours as reductionist.

The second is that that alternatives to higher education are becoming increasingly well promoted. Apprenticeships and higher apprenticeships, for example, are now viable options for more young people, so being able to articulate the value for money a degree or similar qualification offers in comparison is important in beating off this competition for would-be students.

The third is that universities and colleges are not necessarily very good at articulating the value for money they offer

Smita argues that it is important to understand what value is, to minimise student complaints. Value therefore has to go beyond the simple transactional “I paid my fees, I expect to receive this many lectures”.

The current obsession with providing more external data, such as through KIS, means that we are in danger of embedding this approach to value and reducing it to a simplistic or mechanistic system that cannot measure the true benefits to students. The number of ccntact hours is an obvious case. Again, as Smita rightly argues:

unless institutions can articulate value better, any investigation by the OFT is likely to be dominated by a push for more data to enable direct comparison of institutional offers, and the linking of price to measurables such as contact hours, rather than by a recognition of the diverse and distinct benefits that different institutions offer

The challenge for us then, is to clearly articulate what we mean by student experience, byt engaging more closely with our students and other stakeholders, to produce a broader description of what the “deal” is. This will mean clearly showing what fees are to cover (including a clear articulation of how loans actually work, the RAB charge and the expectations and commitments to paying back).In addition, the deal must show how the student is engaged in a two way relationship with the provider, and where responsibilities for success lie at the interface between the two, and require active engagement of the two, rather than the reductive transactional view.

Universities need to seize the initiative on communicating this. We need to be able to show clearly that our students are not just passive consumers, but actively engaged in a relationship with us; that there is more to education than the sticker price, and that the full value of higher education cannot be reduced to a simple set of metrics, driven by a consumer campaign group approach.

We can be better than this – part 2

Posted on by

In an earlier blog post, i took this political slogan, and interpreted in terms of league tables, writing:

I’ve given presentations to two of our faculties on understanding league tables, and what we need to do to improve our position. I always ask people where in a table do they think we should come. The answer lies between 50 and 70, always. Bearing in mind that our position in any of the tables, no matter what the methodology, is not this high the maybe we can take away the following two ideas. Firstly, that there is a will there to work together to change things, and a recognition that improving our position will help with our own feelings of self worth.

The key point of my talk is to explain that league tables are not “something that is done to us”, rather they are just a mirror held up to show us who we are. And if we are uglier than we want to be, then we need to start to do something about it.

Essentially there are two sets of data that go to make up the tables – input and output data. Like all universities, we are now making sure that our input data – staff student ratios, spend per student, entry grades are reflecting us in the best possible light.

 

A few months on and it’s worth revisiting this, in the light of work I’ve been doing on portfolio performance, and in anticipation of the next round of league tables.

We could now move to a position where we start forecasting more accurately where we are likely  to be in a league table, how we should target specific indicators and where our improvements will have a positive effect.

Using the data  in Heidi (2 weeks in and I’m still discovering new things with it) we can use the most recent student and staff records, which were added in February 2014, to do two things:

  1. consider how we have changed since the previous year, and show trends
  2. consider how we have performed against the sector and in particular our comparator group

This isn’t rocket science – I’ve seen plenty of similar outputs from the planning functions of other universities.

As well as developing better business intelligence using this public data (which could easily be linked to UCAS for undergraduate…) we can use the data, and some very simple stats (the same function that league table compilers like to use) to start to look at how well we perform in the market, relative to others. The simple graphs below give an example of this:

subj1 subj2

 

From these simple visualisations, we can see how subject 1 outperforms in terms of market against comparator universities, whereas subject 2 is less prominent, This in itself should give rise to questions about what shape an award portfolio should be.

To make this one step more sophisticated, the same datasets could be used to provide data on student attainment, student entry characteristics and staffing, all of which will enable us to build a predictive model of performance benchmarked against all other institutions.

For a university to fully understand how it performs in league tables, then the first step is to understand how the datasets were compiled. What I am suggesting here, is that by understanding the data more fully, and by comparing in detail against competitors, a university should be able to identify where action can be taken to improve position.

It cannot be emphasised enough though, that league table position is simply a reflection of ourselves, and it should not become the be-all and end-all. We must not end up chasing numerical targets, if that means that we forget the broader goals of a university. I come back to my first point – we can be better than this.

 

Blackboard Updates

Posted on by

In the last couple of months I’ve taken responsibility for the academic side of our BlackBoard implementation.

Here’s a couple of things we’ve done already, and a few that are on the near horizon.

blackboard

1.  New login screens

BB has now been configured so that it delivers a login experience tailored to the individual, based on who you are. We have different login pages for staff, on campus students, distance learning students and for examiners who need to access just a certain part of the content management system.

Hopefully we are now pointing users to just the information that they need.

For staff, we have made sure that all our help files are readily accessible through this login process, and there is a section which will update regularlry where we will showcase new ideas, and tips and tricks that you might wish to use.

2.  New Blackboard Features

We will be upgrading BB in June of this year – dates will be widely circulated nearer the time, but we anticipate having no access for a short period of time over one weekend.

The new version will provide with a be series of tools such as: improved inline marking; anonymous marking; second marking. All of these will be useful in delivering our online assessment and feedback project.

3. Assessment and Feedback Project

We’ve committed to have all level 4 assessment submissions and feedback delivered through Blackboard where appropriator for the start of 2014-15. To support this we’ll be carrying out more targeted staff development sessions, identifying exactly which modules need to be considered, and reviewing a range of university policies around anonymous marking, second marking, sampling, archiving etc to ensure that the technology and our business processes are properly aligned.

4.  Blackboard User Group (BUG)

We’ve created an online user group, which is a BB module into which you self enrol. This will then appear in your list of modules.BUG will be a place for Blackboard users to share their experience of using Blackboard with each other, so please add a question, offer a tip, or even a short guided tour of your Blackboard!

5.   Teaching Excellence Fellows

For a while we’ve been looking for an online place for Teaching Excellence Fellows to share ideas and communicate. As well as looking at tools such as scoop-it, we’ve set up a place in BB for fellows. This module will only be available to past and present fellows.

Any questions, please get in touch with me, or with my colleagues through our [email protected] address.

Using HEIDI Data

Posted on by

I’ve recently been given a password for HEIDI. This is the system used to interrogate HESA data in detail, and for someone like me then there’s lots of things to experiment with.

data

By Shervinafshar (Own work) [CC-BY-SA-3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0) or GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html)], via Wikimedia Commons

I  can already see some great uses though, to support my work:

  • predicting our league table performance
  • benchmarking our subject areas against comparators, in terms of size and performance
  • investigating BME performance across the sector, so we can compare and benchmark

Here’s a few headlines I managed to generate in a short time, using the 2012-13 HESA student record:

(all data presented in this blog post was derived from HEIDI. Intellectual property rights in material generated by heidi rests with HESA and/or other Data Originators)

In terms of 1sts and 2(i)s, which we know is an area where we are lower than much of the sector, then we can see that the number of good degrees we awarded last year rose from 55% to 57.5%, against an average sector rise of 2.2%. This agrees with the internal data we have previously generated. Overall, 119 institutions saw a rise in the number of good degrees and 33 saw a drop. In terms of league tables then, this rise may have minimal impact (although I have used a wider range of HEIs in this analysis than the league table compilers would).

Benchmarking against comparators at subject level is another area in which we can develop more business intelligence, especially in terms of linking to portfolio performance and then to student and league table outcomes.  For instance, some data for Law is shown below:

2012-13 2011-12 2012-13
Institution enrolment percentage good degrees, Law percentage good degrees, Law
Birmingham City University 962 52% 52%
The University of Central Lancashire 942 57% 60%
Coventry University 866 56% 57%
University of Derby 470 59% 65%
Glynd?r University 21 .. ..
The University of Huddersfield 631 31% 43%
The University of Keele 475 61% 63%
Liverpool John Moores University 1,279 64% 72%
The University of Plymouth 735 52% 54%
Staffordshire University 843 57% 59%
The University of Sunderland 422 51% 45%
Teesside University 469 44% 55%
The University of Wolverhampton 1,178 41% 34%

Attainment of Black and Minority Ethnic students is another key area in which I work. Using HEIDI, I can extract the same data that the Equality Challenge Unit provide in their statistical reports – we can just get it more quickly this way.

For instance, I can now look at degree attainment of students  by different ethnicity  for us and our usual comparator universities.

It’s going to be a case of “watch this space”, as I can now develop more sophisticated datasets and visualisations. However, this doesn’t detract from the fact that having the data as just one small part of the jigsaw. The commitment to deliver our academic strategy, and its focus on attainment, means that we know where we are positioned now, we know where we should be so the hard work is in developing the right interventions to make sure that we have a portfolio of awards that delivers for us as an institution and for our individual students
.

Unfinished Business?: Higher education legislation

Posted on by
In this report from the Higher Education Policy Institute (whose remit is to identify important policy issues in higher education), Nick Hillman, former advisor to David Willetts, examines the need for changes to higher education regulation, to deliver a level playing field.

 

level-playing-field
From the HEPI website
Commenting on his first Hepi report, Unfinished Business? Higher education legislation, the new Director of the Higher Education Policy Institute (Hepi), Nick Hillman, said:
“The Coalition promised a level playing field for all higher education providers. But that has not happened. Critical features of English higher education are different depending on the type of provider. They include fees and loans, the treatment of international students, VAT, degree-awarding powers and student complaints. In place of a level playing field, we have an unkempt meadow.
“There is still a case to be made for having the same rules for different providers. There is also a case to be made for an equitable, rather than equal, system with risk-based differences. But the case for maintaining the messy status quo is not nearly as strong.
“Political parties need to say whether they will support a new legal framework for higher education. The answer may not affect their short-term electoral fortunes but it will affect the educational fortunes of students, as well as the long-term reputation of our higher education sector.”
Hillman recognises that there is little to be gained electorally for any political party in supporting changes to HE regulation as part of their campaigning in the next election.
Acknowledging the current state of the HE market, Hillman identifies 8 pinch points that must be addressed when asking the following questions about the future of HE in the UK:
  • What exactly are the differences in the regulation of HEFCE-funded providers and alternative providers?
  • Which elements of the current regime that apply to HEFCE-funded providers should be spread to others – and vice versa?
  • What differences should there be between insitutions with their own degree-awarding powers and others?
  • Is a level playing field still desirable and what would it look like in practice?

1. Tuition fee loans

A key question for policymakers is whether to continue

maintaining the differential in tuition fee loans, but not

maintenance loans or maintenance grants, according to

whether the institution is funded by HEFCE or not. The current rules run counter to the concept of a level playing field, although they also suggest it is possible for the alternative sector to grow rapidly even while their students are entitled to a smaller tuition fee loan than HEFCE-funded providers

 

2.Tuition fee caps

The current position has emerged as a consequence of

more thought being applied to the HEFCE-funded sector than to alternative providers, which have nonetheless grown considerably since the two-tier fees cap regime was legislated for in the Higher Education Act (2004). Each of the three options would have a different impact on the future diversity of the sector and it is time for a more conscious decision on what fee cap, if any, should apply to alternative providers

 

3. Research funding

Although not all private providers are interested in being involved in research, some such as Buckingham ( a not for profit) have expressed interest in being able to access this HEFCE funding stream. However, currently institutions cannot pick and choose which bits of HEFCE funding and regulation they wish to sign up to.

4. Renewal of degree-awarding powers

In the absence of legislation, alternative providers will

continue to face more onerous duties in maintaining their

degree-awarding powers than other institutions. Given their

greater likelihood of a change in ownership, this may be

appropriate. But it is another important area where a level

playing field was promised but has disappeared by default

rather than as the result of a conscious decision.

 

5. Working rights of international students

Recent changes in migration regulation have tightened the rules applied to international students particularly at private providers to remove bogus institutions from the HE ecosystem and protect the very good work that UK HE does in this area and its reputation.

The Coalition is committed to educational exports and a

diverse higher education sector but their migration policies are a barrier to both. Some believe the Government could lose if legal action were brought by alternative providers opposing their differential treatment on students’ working rights. So the current situation may prove unsustainable even without premeditated Government action

6. VAT exemptions

For profit HE providers are generally liable for VAT, many other providers who receive funding from HEFCE are not

‘It is difficult to see how the Government can

effectively open up the higher education sector to competition from for-profit providers without levelling the VAT playing field’

 

7. External degrees

A anomaly exits in terms of the student support that can be accessed , when a student is taking an external award at a different Inquisition – student support is available depending on the nature of the teaching institution. This means that a student studying an award, franchised from an awarding university, but delivered in an FE college would receive student support, but the same student studying the same award in a private college could not access support.

The report notes:

When there is a looser relationship between a
teaching institution and an examination body than in the usual franchising and validating arrangements between alternative providers and universities, there can be an explosion in student numbers and questions are raised about quality control.

 

8. Office of the independent adjudicator

The report notes that some students are protected better than others.

• HE in FE students have different access to the OIA

depending on the precise franchise arrangements of

different universities;

• students at overseas campuses of English and Welsh

institutions are not always covered; and

• students studying at colleges with Foundation Degree

awarding powers are not covered.

Also international students are more likely to use the services of the OIA, and international students are more likely to attend private providers.

Conclusion

Against each of the 8 pinch points, Hillman identifies how each of the different forms of regulation apply to different types of providers, and how this lack of consistency of application of regulation and practice means that there is not a true level playing field for HE providers.

Hillman concludes with reiterating the view that although this is not electorally significant, it is a subject that needs to be tackled by government because it “will affect the educational fortunes of thousands of students and the long term reputation of the UK’s higher education sector”.

 

The Student Deal

Posted on by

A new publication this week from PA Consulting, “The Student Deal” provides thoughts on looking beyond student experience and proposing a deal that engages students, providers and governments. I’m late to the party on this one – Registrarism has already blogged about it here, but I’ll add my thoughts and how this approach should be considered by a non-elite university.

PA recognise that HE is an international buyers market, but question the usefulness of “student experience”, as currently defined, as a useful metric:

“This preoccupation with student experience metrics and satisfaction has been strongly encouraged by Government and features heavily in composite university league tables….

Most current approaches to student experience reify the notion of the student -as-customer and apply quasi-commercial customer service approaches to the transactional aspects of student-provider relations.

This is apparent in the structure of the National Student Survey (NSS), which unwittingly invites comparisons between the ‘student journey’ and the elements of a packaged holiday, with the NSS akin to the TripAdvisor of higher education.”

However PA contend that  the language of the student-as-customers neglects the essential mutual commitment between students and universities and instead propose a multifaceted student deal.

Students study for a variety of reasons, and not just to consume educational and related services, they are instead investing in a relationship that they  hope will enhance the rest of their lives, and so need to be concerned with the benefits of developing a relationship with a particular university which goes beyond the subject material that they study.

PA recognise that a number of universities are trying to tackle this through the idea of graduate attributes – the Staffordshire Graduate would be a good example of this. This is in recognition of the fact that employers want to recruit people with T-shaped attributes – a blend of vertical knowledge and horizontal capabilities.

The challenge therefore for universities is how to provide the context and resources for students to develop into T-shaped people, providing a “rich, multifaceted and joined-up portfolio of co-curricular and extra-curricular learning experiences. Such experiences demand at least as much from the students as from academic and other staff, with learning outcomes as co-produced goals.”

PA propose the following 4 core essentials, which I have then mapped against our SG attributes to see how well they match:

PA Core Outcomes Staffordshire Graduate Attributes
Mastery of discipline based knowledge Discipline Expert

  • Have an understanding of the forefront of knowledge in your chosen field

 
Expertise in applying knowledge and skills Reflective & Critical

  • Have the ability to carry out inquiry-based learning and critical analysis
  • Be a problem solver and creator of opportunities

 
Growth in personal effectiveness Professional

  • Be prepared to be work-ready and employable, and understand the importance of being enterprising and entrepreneurial

 
Improved career and life opportunities Global Citizen

  • Have an understanding of global issues – and their place in a globalised economy

Communication & Teamwork

  • Be an effective communicator and presenter – and be able to interact appropriately and confidently with a range of colleagues
  • Have developed the skills of independence of thought and, where appropriate, social interaction through teamwork

Life Long Learner

  • Be technologically, digitally and information literate
  • Be able to apply Staffordshire Graduate attributes to a range of life experiences – to facilitate life-long learning and life-long success

 

 

 

Our own graduate attributes do seem to map well at this point, but there is more work we could possibly do in future to ensure that they become more embedded in the student deal, that the attributes are very clearly related to outcomes and that our students can articulate clearly what the attributes mean for them.

The diagram below from PA shows how they interpret the 4 facets of the proposed student deal.

pa student deal 1

The report goes on to point out that the Student Deal relies on meeting the ambitions of individuals with the resources and personalised support available through institutions. I believe this creates the challenge for  a university such as ours – it’s relatively easy to develop a set of Graduate Attributes, and work out how to assess them, for “traditional” full time undergraduates on 3 year programmes, but as the report highlights:

“A student journey and set of experiences designed for young, full-time, campus-based students is unlikely to work for older, part-time and home or work-based learners. Such students have much clearer views of what they seek from engagement in higher learning, and much stronger expectations of sharing as equals in the design and experience of a fulfilling Student Deal.

Given the limited growth foreseen in the traditional full-time undergraduate cohort (at least for the next few years), this has profound implications for universities’ and other providers’ responses to the emerging buyers’ market for their business”

So since one size will not fit all, universities will have to tailor their student deals to the diversity of markets in which they operate.

“This differentiation must extend to every aspect of the deal, from the design and delivery of learning materials, to the ways in which learners can engage with tutors and peers, to the co- and extra-curricular experiences provided as part of the provider’s offer.”

The fundamentally conservative nature of university operating procedures, and the obsession with 3 year undergraduate programmes does make it difficult to move out of current entrenched silos. PA suggest looking at Business Schools for ideas – they frequently have a more diverse student population. This is definitely the case for us.

The student deal, as proposed, is about a two way commitment between learners and providers – this explicit deal is proposed to ensure that students do take advantage of all opportunities, eg placements, volunteering and other extra curricular activity.

PA conclude with this diagram, showing how they think that a student deal, rather than the existing metrics on student experience, provide better information for all stakeholders, and will enable people to make better choices in future.

pa student deal 2

Overall, a report worth reading – as we move into a market that is going to be ever more stratified, and where differentiation will be increasingly important, finding new ways of expressing what we offer to potential students and other stakeholders will become increasingly important. The criticisms of NSS and its associated metrics, and links to KIS have been well articulated elsewhere. This is a set of ideas that might help to provide more meaningful information and lead to enhanced student outcomes.

 

Teaching and Learning on the Campus of Tomorrow

Posted on by

As Staffordshire University, and plenty of other institutions, press ahead with estates plans to redevelop their physical estate, this seems  a good time to take stock of what a university of the future might look like.

There have been plenty of apocalyptic visions of the future- for instance “An Avalanche is Coming“, the prediction of only a small number of universities existing world wide and all the predictions of technology led disruptions. Many of these have previously been reported on, dismissively, on this blog.

This article tries to look at some recent publications and ideas, and then links these to what the student of the future might look like, , how that student might want to learn in future, what this means for how we teach and what it means for campuses.

Since the beginning of universities, we have operated on the principle of “the sage on the stage”, and despite increases in student centred learning, small group working etc, this model is still prevalent and in part drives the way in which we timetable teaching and interactions between staff and students and our buildings. Thre’s not a huge difference between the 14th Century and the 21st, as these pictures show:

Laurentius_de_Voltolina_001

(from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Laurentius_de_Voltolina_001.jpg)

Debconf5_lecture

(from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Debconf5_lecture.jpg)

Universities of The Future – some scenarios

A recent publication “Living and Learning in 2034, A Higher Education Futures Project” by University Alliance and Unite Group looks at a possibly dystopian future for HE and what students of the future might want. Since Unite are a property services company, who provide student accommodation, clearly they have a significant interest in how students will study in future.

This publication tries to carry out some scenario planning 20 years into the future, and identifies 10 trends to shape learning in the UK:

A shift in the global economy
Continued to change to public funding for HE
Competition
Demographic Change
Ongoing impacts of the financial crisis
stakeholder expectations
Technological Change
Access to information
Climate change
Megacities and local communities

A range of universities is proposed in the report as follows:

unite - ecosystem

 

Any university be able to look at his and decide which sectors they can see themselves operating in.

Four scenarios are proposed for the future, with ideas about the implications for future living and learning: (all taken from report, not modified)

Scenario One: Living WellReturn to economic growth and collaborative society UK industry is world-leading.• Careers may be considered early on in life, but with a broader scope of flexibility and innovation.• Employers form long-term relationships with universities and seek graduates with many skills and qualifications.

• University seen as a necessary rite of passage to create innovative and collaborative graduates.

• Students have room to explore, but not to be complacent. They look for productive spaces and convenience so they are not bogged down by irrelevant issues.

• Accommodation is energy efficient as a matter of course. It is also expected to include a full range of digital connectivity.

There are many opportunities for both students and academics to collaborate internationally with other institutions.

• Overseas student numbers have increased, keen on physically attending UK universities in order to capitalise on a wealth of opportunities and connections.

• Postgraduate enrolment becomes the norm an increases significantly.
Scenario Two: Community CentreSustained Economic Stagnation and Collaborative Society Learning is rationed and the need to keep costs down is key, while meeting economic priorities.• Part-time learning combined with employment becomes a norm.• Full-time students do not expect to be guaranteed accommodation and more will be living at home to manage costs.

• Students will seek new ways to find success. Social entrepreneurial spirit becomes more of a norm and community initiatives allow many of these ideas to thrive.

UK businesses still have skills, expertise and relationships, but they have become nervous and risk averse. However they play a big role

in working with government to determine the type of skills needed in the economy.

• Unemployment has risen, but so has voluntarism. Communities are strong and people get involved in a wide range of local projects. Local initiatives such as trading schemes, co-operatives and credit unions are on the rise.

• Government has limited funds to invest in infrastructure and cities are suffering as a result.

• Public skills development programmes are popular but there aren’t enough jobs. The most talented choose to leave the UK to find work.

• Full-time student numbers are lower, but significant numbers still study.

• The student accommodation market is changing and the wise players

diversified a decade ago to take advantage of a broader range of market opportunities.
Scenario Three: Digital IslandsStagnating economy and competitive society Students will look to local universities for cost-effective training toward a chosen career. Expectations are for a quick turnaround, with more full-time degrees being delivered in 18 months.• The ‘student experience’ is utilitarian. Students are seeking a route to employment and they engage in activities with direct and tangible benefits.• Inequality between those in ‘elite’ institutions and those in local universities is pronounced. There are fewer universities; many institutions have merged.

• Curricula have narrowed and there is less scope for non-applied subjects. Full-time degrees are delivered in 18 months.

• There is little optimism in Britain. Personal debt has increased, pensions have decreased and jobs are not well paid. Britain’s industrial base is significantly weakened.

• Consumer choice is driven by necessity and price. Consumption is efficient.

• Business is short-termist. Training and education are regarded as a cost rather than an investment. There is little or no innovation.

• HE’s purpose is training for employment. Local employers commission courses from FE/HE partnerships according to workforce needs.

• Students from the cities favour going to their local universities and demand for accommodation has fallen.

• Postgraduate education has declined.

• There is little differentiation of accommodation by quality or service; basic property management is all that is required to be a provider.

• Uncertainty and reactivity can create fluctuations in student numbers

year on year. As such, successful accommodation providers have the flexibility to expand or reduce capacity as required.
Scenario Four: Whatiwant.comGrowing economy and a competitive society Students demand many different ways to interact and meet their learning needs.• Specialisation is common, but with individual student interests in mind.• Education is part of a much bigger picture for many students. The old accusations of lazy students are practically forgotten now. Total

downtime is rare and most activities have good reason and vested interests behind them.

• Digital technologies are integrated into everyday life. Fast and reliable access is taken for granted.

• All-in-one packages with inclusive services are favoured to help save both time and money.

• Students are keen to find the best experience and quality of teaching possible. Some are willing to pay more if they consider it a useful investment for their future.

• Accommodation varies in price, but is always well serviced. For those who can afford it, exclusive features and luxury space can be purchased at a premium.

From this kind of scenario planning, and linking this to what we actually know about our economy and institution, we can start to consider what we need to offer in terns of learning and teaching in the future – proactively developing our offer.

Learning and Teaching of Tomorrow

We already seen the reports from Graham Gibbs and many others saying that the lecture s dead. We’ve also read the predictions that MOOCs will change the world as we know it.

Thankfully there’s been a move away from the hyperbolic or hysterical news stories in recent months, with a more measured understanding appearing of how we can use technology and adapt learning and teaching practice to provide better outcomes.

In this article from InsideHigherEd, by Pamela Barnett, a critique is given of teh current trend for the “flipped classroom” and an explanation of why some lectures are still needed, but that an approach that she describes as “scrambled” is the most apprpriate. I think many of this will recognse this as “blended learning”, so nothing necessarily new, but its useful to see a clear critique of the flipped classroom concept, which is as rigidly defined as teh old didactic model.

Even Anant Agarwal (founder of EdX) acknowledges in this TED talk of the real benefit of using a MOOC to support blended learning (and in doing so identifies a possible revenue stream). He rightly recognises the need for us to understand the technological savvy of our students and a need for us to embrace this and to ensure learning is embedded through technology in students’ lives. Agarwal talks of re-imagining education, moving away from lecture theatres, to e-spaces, t using tablets, moving away from actual dormitories to digital dormitories.

Possible Impacts for Us

In a MOOC that I took on Surviving Disruptive Technologies, I looked at the near term future of a university and the impact that the use of educational technology, including MOOCs would have. I considered the type of students we might recruit in the future, how they may not want to bear the cost of studying on campus for three years and how this would affect estates, technology etc.(A copy of my assigner is available on request!)

When I look at my ideas again, in the light of the scenarios presented by University Alliance and Unite Group, and the ability for technology to lay a major part n how we deliver education of the future, I would suggest the following:

  • We identify what kind of university we want to be, and how in each of the scenarios we would need to operate.The potential change is much broader than the change to learning and teaching practice. It could have an impact on the patterns of learning that students engage with, and this would have a dramatic effect on the shape of a future campus. This goes beyond teaching accommodation. What do we need to do about student residence? Sports? Social facilities? Staff offices?
  • We look at the ways in which we plan to deliver learning and teaching in 5 years time, supported by technology, and in response to the possible kinds of students we will attract
  • We understand how we need to change and stop some of our current learning and teaching practices
  • We consider what the University should physically look like in the future.

This has been a bit of a future-gazing article. I don;t pretend to have the answers, but I’ll be working with my networks in the University and outside to start thinking of ways to develop some of this thinking. My first action is a now regular meeting with the Deputy Director in Information Services where we will be assessing the impact of new and near to market technologies to support learning and teaching.

 

 

Some HESA Statistics

Posted on by

One of the joys of working in an organisation that is public sector (actually that’s a definitional can of worms that I’m not going to open in this post) is that plenty of data exists which is publicly available for anyone to read, both about the sector, and about individual institutions. Even without creating your own detailed reports, a quick view of the sector can be gained from the statistics that appear on the front page of the HESA (Higher Education Statistics Agency) website and in their iPhone app (yes, really!). a simple cut and paste into Excel and we can produce some simple headlines and compare individual institutions to either the overall sector to to a range of comparators or competitors.

Anyway, the most recent student and staff records have been added for the 2012-13 academic year, and we could use these to identify how we compare, and with a little bit of work, how we might perform in the next round of league tables.

Student Population

Over the last 5 years we’ve seen dramatic changes to the funding of HE, the shift in burden of fees and loans to the individual rather than the state, and changes to visas for overseas students.

The overall population has changed as follows:

sector student pop

showing a slight dip in the last year, although UCAS data would imply this may rise this year.

For us we see a decline in numbers overall:

su student pop

Looking in more detail at the undergraduate population for the sector as a whole:

sector student mode

We see that full tine numbers have an overall upward trend, but as has been highlighted many times by the sector’s mission groups, part time numbers are decreasing, and the policies for funding part time students have not been updated or considered to the same degree as those for full time students. There is untapped human potential here – and untapped markets for the universities that can get the right kind of part time offer.

For us the picture is not dissimilar, although we had previously significant growth in part time which was not replicated across the sector

su student mode

Academic Staffing

If we look at the staffing in higher education, across the sector the main change is the decrease in the number of non academic roles compared to academic. The overall number of academic posts has grown, with little change in number of part time roles.

sector staff popsector staff mode

 

Looking at our own institution, we see a similar trend in the balance of academic and non academic roles, but a noticeable difference in the balance between part time and full time academic posts.

su staff popsu staff mode

 

In conclusion, we can get an overview of any institution from this very publicly available data. To make more sense of it, and to go behind the headlines and reach a deeper meaning involves looking at what sits beyond the front page of the HESA website.

Those of us with HEIDI accounts can easily start to look in detail at all sorts of things – how subject areas are growing or declining compared with other universities or the sector as a whole; how well students achieve in different institutions; how well subject areas in individual institution compare in recruiting students locally, nationally or internationally.

I’m already linking this kind of information to very detailed internal portfolio performance data (which would only be available internal to an organisation since it contains materials protected under the Data Protection Act) for one of our faculties to develop some sophisticated pointers of how to develop their academic award portfolio.

 

 

 

Leadership – should you be like Cnut?

Posted on by

After Gordon Tredgold’s talk at the University recently, I have been struck by the number of colleagues who attended, who have really enagaed with his approach, FAST – focus, accountable, simple and transparent. it’s great to be working with people who taken this on board and there have been lots of comments and conversations on Twitter and a lot of follow-up activity. So here’s my contribution – lead like Cnut.

Cnut_the_Great_-_MS_Royal_14_B_VI(from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cnut_the_Great_-_MS_Royal_14_B_VI.jpg)

 

 

Cnut (also known as Canute) was a king of England in 1016 and King of Denmark in 1018 If history had been slightly different he could have laid the foundations of a major English – Scandinavian alliance, but for his sons dying early and those pesky Normans invading England.

Wikipedia states:

Henry of Huntingdon, the 12th-century chronicler, tells how Cnut set his throne by the sea shore and commanded the tide to halt and not wet his feet and robes. Yet “continuing to rise as usual [the tide] dashed over his feet and legs without respect to his royal person. Then the king leapt backwards, saying: ‘Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings, for there is none worthy of the name, but He whom heaven, earth, and sea obey by eternal laws.’ He then hung his gold crown on a crucifix, and never wore it again “to the honour of God the almighty King”.[95] This incident is usually misrepresented by popular commentators and politicians as an example of Cnut’s arrogance.

 

If I chose to willfully misunderstand the story or myth, I’d be writing to say that as leaders we can operate in such a way that ignores the environment in which we are in, and blithely carry on, thinking that we know better. Some of the big challenges that face all universities are: the neo-liberal funding regime; the current debate on immigration; the changes in technology for learning and teaching; the accessibility of open data to make judgments about institutions by students and other stakeholder and the rising tide of social media that cannot be stopped but must be harnessed, to name but a few..

But to represent Cnut correctly, he is aware of the ” tide in the affairs of men”, and recognises he has to respond, and sharpish.

Leadership is being able to recognise those tides, the changes and the challenges “which taken at the flood, lead on to fortune”.

Linking this back to Gordon –

Can we identify exactly what our focus should be in a rapidly changing environment? Cnut knew – it was to recognise the greater forces around him and to respond quickly.

Leaders need to hold themselves accountable. Cnut knew he had to take responsibility and get out of the way, but more importantly he had to show his courtiers, his team, that he was able to move and make a change in response to his environment..

Can we make our message about how we are dealing with complex changes, simple and easy to understand? Cnut made his point, but his legacy is of being misunderstood – maybe he needed to do a bit more on the messaging front.

Are we being transparent about what we are doing?  If we are focused on the right things, people will become more motivated, especially if we can ensure that the attractiveness of success is greater than the resistance to change. Resistance to change for Cnut meant getting wet feet. Cnut wanted his team to focus on moving quickly from the incoming tide and  to show that we need to respond to our environment.

I’m fully aware of the running joke in this piece – it’s deliberate. You’ll remember it better this way.

 

Planning work on BME Student Attainment

Posted on by

This year, I’ll be leading some work across the institution to challenge the degree attainment of students in different subject areas – we know that there is a wide difference in the number of good degrees awarded from subject to subject, and that this has an impact on student success after graduation and ultimately on university league table position.

When I look into the data on student success in more detail, we start to see other startling patterns. The one which stands out the most is the difference in attainment between white students and BME (Black and Minority Ethnic) students. This isn’t a situation unique to Staffordshire University, as can be seen in the statistical releases from the Equality Challenge Unit.

Black-and-Minority-Ethnic-degree-students

However, I am committed to tackling this issue head on within our university – driven by a commitment to social justice and an ability to “do the numbers””.

I fully accept that this is going to mean some difficult conversations, and already I’ve had some challenges when I’ve talked about this in faculties. It will also mean some significant learn for me, and a preparedness for many of us to talk about things that make us uncomfortable (or instance – do you know the difference between race and ethnicity? Or should you use the term BME?)

Reading the plan for the Equality Challenge Unit, I’m going to shamelessly copy the four strands of their strategy, and to adapt it to our own needs:

“Illuminate – Provide quantitative and qualitative evidence on equality and diversity within UK HEIs and colleges in Scotland to illuminate equality and diversity challenges in these sectors.

Articulate – Work collaboratively with and assist external bodies on equality and diversity matters that impact on UK HEIs and colleges in Scotland.

Champion – Develop the case for equality and diversity to secure and maintain the commitment and support of institutional leaders.

Transform – Work with all institutions to identify and change any cultural and systemic practices that unfairly exclude, marginalise or disadvantage individuals or groups, and to promote inclusive approaches.

– See more at: http://www.ecu.ac.uk/about-us/our-strategy-2014-16#sthash.AKJLp8g9.dpuf”

 

For us at Staffordshire, my initial thoughts are:

Illuninate – identify through our own data sets the levels of attainment of different groups of students, based on characteristic such a ethnicity, gender, disability and age. Compare with national trends to identify which specific areas we need to work on

Articulate – work collaboratively with a group drawn from across faculties and services and the Students’ Union (I’m delighted that Rochelle, our SU President, wants to be involved) to develop a shared understanding and message for the institution, together with practical steps that can be taken

Champion – develop a range of actions and measurable targets that can be tested through processes such as Annual Monitoring and Quarterly Business Reviews, to ensure commitment at the highest level

Transform – promote inclusive practices across the institution, related to recruitment, teaching and learning,assessment, personal tutoring, data analytics etc.

I don;t expect this to  be an easy journey, but it’s the right one to take. To provide some more background and some inspiration, we’ve got a great speaker, Dr Winston Morgan of UEL, to come and talk about the attainment gap at this year’s Staff Fest Learning and Teaching Conference.