The Zombies are Back

Previously on this blog, I wrote about the work of Mike Boxall of PA Consulting, and his work which suggested that universities could be split into broad groups of Oligarchs, Innovators and Zombies. In fact, Mike came to our Leadership Conference this year to talk about this very topic.

zombie

Last week on this blog I wrote about the idea of marginal gains, and this prompted discussion online and face to face with various people. One of the comments on  my blog was a reference to the work of Miles and Snow, who created a typology of the various strategic approaches that organisations can take. This prompted me to go away and read  a little about this, but also to have  a conversation where we could start to build a  linkage between ideas of Mile and Snow, and of Oligarchs, Innovators and Zombies.

With that in mind, and recognising that the UK HE system or market is in a state of flux, it might be worth revisiting what Mike Boxall has been saying recently, and also to look at what is happening with a couple of universities who maybe don’t qualify as innovators or oligarchs.

Mike has revisited the PA report from the summer, which was the annual survey of VC’s attitudes and opinions:

“The responses showed most vice-chancellors to be deeply pessimistic about the outlook for student recruitment and research funding, and predicting widespread institutional failures and mergers. Yet they were almost universally bullish about the prospects for their own institutions’ ability to secure growth and profits from those same problematic sources”

“We have in effect moved from a closed, stable and largely harmonious HE ecosystem to a new open and disrupted market in which the relationships and interdependencies between the internal and external life of universities are being redrawn in real time. This is putting vice-chancellors under new pressures. Wearing their representational hats, they find themselves fighting rear-guard actions against government policies that actively damage the interests of their institutions, such as visa restrictions on overseas students. Meanwhile, wearing their managerial hats, they must persuade their academic communities to recognise that the market genie will not be put back in the bottle, and that they need to reinvent their business.

It is not surprising therefore that surveys such as PA’s reflect apparently contradictory messages from vice-chancellors. On the one hand, they are telling government ministers, who “seem not to be bothered”, that their policies are jeopardising the HE system as we have known it. At the same time, they are telling their institutional stakeholders that there is a bright future beyond Student Number Controls and Resource Allocation Budget charges, if only they can overcome their deep-seated aversion to change”

With this is mind, it’s salutatory to look at two universities in the news in the last week or so.

Firstly, Glyndwr. This week the Times Higher ran a piece suggesting that there were possible merger talks between Glyndwr and Bangor. No evidence was provided, but it was an opportunity for the press to reiterate the problems at that institution – the vote of no confidence in the VC, the poor financial situation and the loss of Highly Trusted Status from UKVI. A zombie maybe?

Contrast this with London Metropolitan. Rarely out of the news last year, London Met has a new VC, formerly of Oxford Brookes, who has taken on the job that some have described as the toughest in HE. Alternatively, it could be viewed as one of the most exciting. As a welcome gift, UKVI reinstated Highly Trusted Status. As reported in the Times Higher, John Raftery has identified a clear strategy for the institution that includes: improving student experience so that a rise in NSS will have a positive effect in league tables; paying st dent mentors to support those in the year below them; embedding work placements in all awards, and also questioning if the entry tariff should be raised (something else that would improve elague table position. Not rocket science, but clear and focused.

So we can see that futures aren’t fixed – zombies might not necessarily always be zombies, and a clearly focused strategy can help with that.

In terms of Miles and Snow, with their typology of defenders, analysers, prospectors and reactors, then London Met seems to be moving firmly into the position of analyser (work, which in truth was already happening with their previous portfolio review work).

In terms of comparison with Mike Boxall’s work, then the place that no-one wants to be is that of reactor (or zombie). An interesting challenge in the last year was the change in SNC announced in the Autumn Statement – no-one forecast it, no-one had a strategy readily in place to deal with it, and so all universities had to react to a significant change in the external environment. What will be interesting in a year’s time when this change has had an impact, is to see who just reacted, and who carried out the analysis to develop a strategy to respond successfully. (My thoughts on this were on my blog).

As always, we need to be in position where we are at least analysers, and ideally developing into either a prospector or innovator.No-one wants to be a reactor or zombie.

Blog supplemental

My colleague, Peter Jones (Head of Psychology Sport and Exercise) has also blogged today about strategy inc Miles and Snow.

Lots of data about HE in England!

This one is for the wonks.

HEFCE has published a set of interactive charts on its website on Higher Education Provision in England.

According to the HEFCE site, Professor Madeleine Atkins, HEFCE Chief Executive, said:

‘As the Government seeks to ensure that economic recovery and growth is more evenly shared across different localities and industry sectors, universities and colleges continue to play a critical role in supplying a highly educated and skilled workforce, providing opportunities for individuals while meeting the needs of the economy and society.

‘The data shows us that the issues associated with HE cold spots can often be complex. Higher education providers, working collaboratively with their local enterprise partnerships, will be able to use this powerful new toolkit to establish a detailed picture of HE in their localities, enabling them to identify any gaps in provision, participation and the supply of graduates. This provides a strong evidence base to explore potential solutions for delivering local economic recovery and growth.

‘Universities and colleges play a key role as economic and social ‘anchors’ in their local and wider communities. Working with local partners in this way to reach a joint understanding of the issues that affect them collectively, they can make an important contribution to the ongoing development of Strategic Economic Plans, and also, of course, to decisions about where and when to invest different forms of funding.’

The maps show that there appear to be HE “cold spots” in: border areas between England and Wales; along the Cumbrian coast; Humberside and North Yorkshire; from Kent to the Wash, and the south-west.

Looking at the interactive maps in detail we can see that for the West Midlands students traveled an average of 41 miles from home to their institution, and 30 miles from home to graduate employment. Only students in London traveled less from home to work.

71% of graduates whose home was the West Midlands ended up working in this region (only the North East and North West have a higher number of graduates returning to work in their home region. However, when looking at where graduates who studied in the West Midlands ended up working, then only 57% were retained in the region.

Looking at subject level data, it’s notable that in terms of student numbers, Staffordshire punches above its weight in terms of the numbers of STEM students (I’ve excluded Birkbeck from this sheet just so I could get a screengrab), but there are few unis above us in terms of numbers enrolled.hefceparticipation1

 

We’re also pretty big in terms of new entrants to technology awards too.

hefceparticipation2

So, in summary, here’s a resource from HEFCE that brings together data that is available elsewhere, for instance HEIDI and  DLHE,  but possibly less easy to visualise. Using the website and the downloadable app for graphing means that some quick comparisons can be created to show how, for instance, relative strengths of subject areas.

 

 

 

 

Marginal Gains

Much if my work at the moment is about considering performance. That could be institutional performance in league tables, the performance of individual awards in Portfolio Performance Review, the performances of students in individual modules and that if the staff teaching them.

We know we have some big changes that we want to make- any analysis of a league table or internal monitoring and benchmarking document will show where we seem to be outperformed by our comparator universities.

To think about how we make the changes necessary, I’ve looked for ideas from elsewhere. We already have a range of plans, of interventions which might seem to be overtly managerial, but which need to happen to gain some quick wins. After discussion with a PVC at another university, I have reflected on the need to make sure that managerialism doesn’t become punitive, or become the barrier to moving to where you want to be in the future.

I want to try out some other ideas, and the idea of Marginal Gains might be one.

The idea of marginal gains comes from the world of sport, firstly with Clive Woodward leading England to winning the 2003 World Cup, and more recently with Dave Brailsford leading TeamGB cycling to Olympic success and Team Sky to consecutive Tour de France wins.

There is an argument that you only do this once everything else is nearly right, but for me this philosophy could also be used alongside other major change, as long as we realise that we mustn’t forget to deal with the big problem!

IMG_0134.JPG

The idea, as Brailsford expresses it, is that he believes that by breaking down and identifying every tiny aspect of an athlete’s performance and then making just a 1% improvement in each area the athlete’s overall performance can be significantly enhanced.

IMG_0135.JPG

Plenty of others have looked to see how this could be applied to education , for instance in The Guardian in 2012 “An unexpected Olympic legacy: how to make marginal gains with your students” and on the Marginal Learning Gains website.

So if we want to see an overall performance improvement in the university, we couldbreak down all our activities and make each one of them better by just 1%. And the idea is that adding together all of those small improvements will make a big difference overall.

For the university then, where could we each work to make those 1% improvements?

At a personal level, we could all make changes of our teaching to try to make it more accessible. We could be 1% more approachable to students. We could be 1% better in providing proper feedback on assessments. We could be 1% better in being professional – turning up on time, not treating students as confidantes.

As an institution and from a strategic level we need to think about what our key indicators are, and where we can make marginal gains to improve in each of them. League tables again are an obvious starting point – although they are no more than an external reflection of how we perform, they do, to  large extent, measure things that matter to us such as student satisfaction and student attainment. So some 1% increases in each of these might start to show some overall performance differences (so long as we don’t forget to deal with the big issues).

blog supplemental

This article has been quoted by the VC in his weekly blog, and has generated comments already from one of our faculties. It’s good to see that this is provoking debate, but despite promoting this as a way of thinking, I still emphasise- don’t forget to sort out the big fundamental issues.

We can be better than this part 5

A new term and a new set of challenges face us, specifically how to make sure that the latest cohort of new entrants is best supported to be as successful as possible.
In the last year we’ve created a focus on student attainment, looking at how we might improve individual module results, considering why we award relatively fewer good degrees compared with others and why there is a gap in attainment between white and BME students.
In the last week, UCAS released early data on student admissions for the 2914 cycle.
One statistic that really stands out was the huge rise in students who gained AAB+ equivalence through BTEC  qualifications.

This was then reported in the Telegraph as universities dumbing down– with no explanation of why a BTEC should be considered in this way compared with A-levels.
Million+ weighed into the conversation (during the week when they sponsored a fringe event at Labour conference and then said very little about it) by claiming that this increase in students applying to university through vocational routes suggested that Labour’s claims of students being left behind were unfounded. Let’s deal with that first- the young people the Labour party is talking about are NOT the ones gaining good higher nationals that will equip them for higher education- they are talking about the other 55% who don’t go to university.

But for us, what does this mean? Remembering back to our Learning and Teaching Conference in the summer, when Winston Morgan was talking about BME attainment and Liz Thomas about the need for inclusive pedagogies, then we might need to gain a better understanding of what qualifications our students are arriving with

If you are teaching a first year class, all of whom attained over 300 points through traditional A-levels, then there might be one way to approach that class. If, however, the majority of the class have entered through a more vocational qualification, them maybe the teaching style and assessment needs to be adapted. Or maybe a proper academic skills development programme is needed.

The first step in this would be knowing exactly what qualifications individuals are starting their courses with, and also an overall snapshot of the educational background of a cohort.

If we could set free the relevant data, and most importantly, be prepared to act upon it, we might be able to make some small but significant changes that could really drive student success.

Get on your bikes and ride!

To quote the late Freddie Mercury….

bhf start

This year a small group of us, all with links to the University, will be taking part in the British Heart Foundation midnight ride from Manchester to Blackpool, on 27th-28th September. While most people are warmly tucked up in bed, we’ll be out, pedaling along empty moonlit roads for a few hours.

Our little team is called HalfRiceHalfChips – in acknowledgement of the perfect accompaniment to a reviving Bhuna. As always, we’ll be grateful for sponsorship – please click through to our JustGiving Page. In return, we’ll promise not to post photographs of us clad in lycra.

Alternatively, if you’d like to join us for the ride, then give me a call or email.

 

The Innovation Challenge

A new publication out this week from the university think tank, million+, looks at the current state of research funding in universities and makes a case for a revised approach. In addition, the million+ website carries a blog piece by its chair, our VC Prof Michael Gunn.

Inevitably, since million+ universities are those who are least likely to receive the big grants and funding from REF, there is some critique of the current concentration of research funding to a small number of institutions such might prevent others from capitalising on their intellectual capital, and being able to provide new ideas into their communities.

The key findings were:

> The UK Government invests less in research and development than the leading 22 OECD countries, as a percentage of GDP

> The UK has a low level of private investment in research lying 19th of OECD countries in terms of private sector investment in research and development as a percentage of GDP

> In 2012-13, 25% of the UK’s total recurrent research funding was allocated to five universities, 50% to twelve universities and 75% to 31 universities; the remaining 130 universities shared 25% of recurrent research funding

The recommendations of the report are:

The UK Government should increase its investment in science and innovation and set a target to be in the top ten of OECD countries by the end of the next Parliament in 2020

• New approaches are needed to ensure taxpayer investment in research is more widely distributed so that businesses, wherever they are located, can benefit from the expertise of research staff and so that students get a better deal

• The UK Government should continue to fund excellent research wherever
it occurs in universities but amend the criteria to avoid critical mass thresholds excluding smaller units of researchers from funding allocations
• Funding for 2* research should be restored and an expanded science and innovation budget deployed to invest in research of national significance

• All universities with research degree- awarding powers which currently
do not benefit significantly from other taxpayer research funding should be guaranteed funds to invest in research infrastructure and staff capacity
• A new stream of funding should be established to support translational research in universities which receive less research funding from the Funding and Research Councils

• The importance of investing in STEM subjects is accepted but under-investment in social science and research associated with the creative industries must be addressed

• Account should be taken of the impact of government investment strategies in research on the institutional unit of resource available to invest in the student experience

The report provides examples of how member universities of million+ are engaged in relevant research and innovation with local and national businesses, including reference to Flux, a Staffordshire University spin out company.

A particular critique of the status quo is reserved for the hyper-concentration of research funding, and the report highlights how this has an impact on overall student experience. For instance:

despite more students being taught at modern universities at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels, the average recurrent research investment was only £127 for all students or £661 for postgraduate students. This compares to corresponding figures of £2353 and £8136 across the 24 Russell Group universities. The investment per postgraduate student in modern universities is around 12 times less than in Russell Group universities, despite far larger numbers of students.

While much of the funding will not necessarily directly affect students, in an institution with greater expenditure and investment in facilities and research staff, there will be obvious benefits to the learning and teaching experience, particularly when a defining feature of higher education is that students can expect to be at the forefront of their discipline and be taught by those who are pushing the boundaries of knowledge.

Overall, a report worth reading which hopefully creates the case for reviewing the way in which research and innovation is supported in universities.

Education at a Glance

“Education at a Glance” is the misleading title of a new publication from the OECD, as 570 pages will not be read at a glance by anyone!

However, there are gems to be pulled out from the report, and both the Guardian and Times Higher have identified some key messages for universities.

From the Guardian:

“The UK’s massive expansion in university education has not led to a parallel increase in skills, an international study has discovered, with only a quarter of the country’s graduates reaching the highest levels in literacy, well below other top-performing nations.”

And from the Times Higher:

“The UK is ranked relatively low among the most developed nations for the literacy skills of graduates, with its performance described as “a puzzle” given the elevated reputation of its universities”

Interestingly, the Guardian also reports that he skills gap is even greater when numeracy is considered.

On a more positive note, Nicola Dandridge of UUK is reported as saying:

“the sector recognised complaints from some employers about graduates’ skills, and argued that some of this was down to schooling. She added: “However, higher education can have a role in developing students in key areas of employability.” Universities were addressing this challenge, she said, in part through increased links with employers such as work placements”

Clearly our work on Staffordshire Graduate Attributes and the focus of employability, enterprise and entrepreneurship throughout our awards will allow our graduates to be able to compete successfully on graduation.

However, as so often, I an left with the question – could we do more around numeracy to support our students better? I’m not proposing high level mathematics here, but topics such as the ability to use a spreadsheet sensibly, to be able to understanding basic probability and statistical tests, and an understanding of how to handle and present data. Numeracy was identified in the recent Kaplan report on what employers want – maybe a university could steal a march over others in being the first to embed these skills into programmes.

Alternatively, if we don’t want to embed the skills, then maybe its time for either individual students or institutions to look at some of the latest developments in MOOCs and competency based education, currently happening in the US.

Clay Christensen (he of disruptive innovation fame) is now promoting the idea that vocational competency based education is the new disruptor. Maybe for developing specific skill sets (such as numeracy, or enhanced literacy) there may be a place for individuals or unis to engage with this agenda to provide them with the added skills in literacy and numeracy that the OECD identify are lacking in UK graduates.

Could this be an end to my MOOC skepticism, and the development of a Staffordshire University optional course to enhance numeracy skills?

 

Last Year’s Resolutions

On September 2nd last year, I published a blog article of resolutions for the academic year, so now is probably a good time to review progress against each of them:

1. Make student attainment a focus for Academic Development Unit activity

This was certainly a focus of discussion for the Heads of School/Associate Deans group and proposals for improvements were progressed wtih Deans and others. Just as importantly, studnt attainment became part of the Academic Strategy.

2. Make sure every group of staff knows how they can contribute to improving league table performance

Plenty of work published on this, either as analysis of league table results, in blog articles and in talks across the university. Not sure how well embedded this is yet. We state that league table position is a Key Performance Indicator, but we could do more on consistent messaging and activity to support this.

3. Give talks  in all faculties and schools throughout the year

Very grateful to the schools and faculties that have invited me to talk to staff about league tables, student attainment, BME student performance, NSS and technology enhanced learning. The most engaged areas from my perspective are PSE, and the faculties of BEL and ACT.

4. Run an event on campus to address the issue of BME student performance

BME student attainment was eh subject of a keynote address and workshops at the summer StaffFest Learning and Teaching Conference. Great to have a larger number of attendees than ever before, but still this an area for improvement – looking at the attendance, for one School, only one member of staff was present. If we are a teaching led institution, then I cannot understand how this kind of event is not relevant to everyone?

5. Develop undergraduate and postgraduate award portfolio performance tools

The undergraduate tool was successfully developed. This year (data permitting) it will be available earlier to faculties for use, with more emphasis on performance, rather than recruitment.

An intial postgraduate analysis has already been supplied to faculties.

6. Learn how to use Blackboard, particularly analytics

I’ve made some progress on this, mainly in terms of setting up the governance processes but there’s a lot more to be done, now that management fo BB comes within my remit (it didn’t last September).

7. Review personal tutoring and other L&T enhancement processes

As part of the restructure in ADU, I handed the project on personal tutoring over, and received e-learning in return. A good deal. This academic year, some early adopters will be using the revised personal tutoring policy. Other enhancement projects, around student attainment and module performance are now working their way though exec, so watch this space.

8. Give keynote speech on MOOCs

I presented on this at an HEA event at University of Hertfordshire. More broadly, I presented (together with Dave Parkes) on digital futures, digital literacy and the NMC Horizon report to one of the facuties.

9.Stop writing blog articles about MOOCs – they were so 2012.

There were fewer articles about MOOCs this year.

10. Do not publish blog articles that might offend…….chiz

Academics need to be able to challenge the status quo. What I write in this blog is not to offend but occasionally to challenge and open up debate.

At a time of change in the HE sector and for our university I see this as critically important. When an academic  can be suspended from their university,with “part of the evidence against him is that he sighed, projected negative body language and asked “ironic” questions while interviewing candidates for a position at the department”; when a firm of lawyers blog about the need for a university to be able to deal with high performing employees who, although academically brilliant, have the potential to damage their employer’s brand and when the THE publishes a major piece by Fred Inglis on the obligation of academics to speak truth to power, then I hope that in a small way that this blog, and the reflections on and the challenges arising from my work are my contribution to the development of the academy.

As for next year’s resolutions – well the ADU are rewriting teh academic strategy implementation plan, and my work will come out of that. The only other two resolutions so far are things that I will not be engaging with 2014-15. Those who know me, know what they are, and why.

 

 

National Student Survey 2014

Well if the second week of August wasn’t  busy enough already, with A-level results and the onset of clearing, then just to give something else for HE wonks and award leaders to think about, along comes this year’s National Student Survey results.

NSS-results-2014-letterbox (1)

As HEFCE announce, student satisfaction has risen nationally once again, with 86% of students saying they are satisfied and “satisfaction has either improved since 2013 or stayed the same in each of the seven categories covered by the survey”.

Professor Madeleine Atkins, HEFCE Chief Executive, said:

‘I’m delighted to see record levels of student satisfaction this year, as well as marked improvements in satisfaction with assessment and feedback over the last decade.

‘The NSS is the largest survey of its kind in the UK. Over the last 10 years it has helped over 2 million students to make their voices heard about the things that matter to them, and has been fundamental to driving change in our universities and colleges.

‘In a period of technological advance, internationalisation and funding reforms, the NSS will continue to enable students’ views to be heard and to stimulate innovation and excellence in teaching and learning in our universities and colleges.’

HEFCE also provide links to recent review of the NSS which considers how effective the current survey is and makes recommendations for changes, primarily around adding questions on “student engagement”.  The report also talks about methodological issues related to the use of the survey, stating:

The NSS results can be used responsibly in the following ways with proper caution:

  • To track the development of responses over time
  • To report absolute scores at local and national levels
  • To compare results with agreed internal benchmarks
  • To compare the responses of different student groups, including equity target groups
  • To make comparisons, with appropriate vigilance and knowledge of statistical variance, between programmes in the same subject area at different institutions
  • To help stimulate change and enhance dialogue about teaching and learning.

However, they cannot be used responsibly in these ways:

  • To compare subject areas, e.g. Art & Design vs. Engineering, within an institution unless adjustments are made for typical subject area differences nationally
  • To compare scores on different aspects of the student experience (between different scales, e.g. assessment vs. teaching) in an unsophisticated way
  • To compare whole institutions without taking account of sources of variation such as subject mix and student characteristics
  • To construct league tables of programmes or institutions that do not allow for the fact that the majority of results are not materially different.

Academics and other commentators  have long been critical of the usefulness of the NSS, and on publication, HEFCE asked via Twitter whether it was fit for purpose….

nsstwitter

The Times Higher ran an article on views from the sector on the usefulness of the NSS, which claimed that one lecturer at a university in the West of England described the NSS as “about as scientifically useful as TripAdvisor is for travellers”.

Nonetheless, it is the instrument we currently have, and so for the coming year as an institution we will be looking at our results and how to use them effectively.

At institutional level we have seen another improvement – just like the sector overall, we improve on a yearly basis.

nssoverall

While acknowledging the difficulties of comparing dissimilar subjects, it’s relatively easy for us to benchmark subject groups against other institutions using the full data-set from HEFCE.

We will also look at those individual awards that appear as outliers in our results – those awards that gained 100% overall satisfaction (I can’t name them all as not all the data can be used publicly) should be a source of ideas to those whose results were outliers at the other end of the scale.

Staff employed at HEFCE-funded HEIs

HEFCE have just released data on characteristics of staff employed at UK HEIs, with a nifty little interactive tool to allow you to plot the graphs. Sadly it doesn’t;t allow you to add multiple categories together or anything truly interactive,but there are some inetrestign (and in some case, I guess, inevitable) results.

If we look at gender, then the more senior you are, and the higher up the pay scale, the more likely you are to be male. this applies in senior leadership roles, but also in academic roles.

hefcestaff1

If we look at ethnicity, then the higher up the greasy pole, the more likely you are to be white.

hefcestaff3

For those universities who are working toward the Equality Challenge Unit Race Equality Charter Mark, or indeed initiatives such as Athena Swan, then it might be interesting to consider recruitment and development policies and institutional results against the national trend, otherwise as a sector we are likely to reinforce the image of senior roles being for middle aged white guys (disclaimer – I am one).

To really get a better reflection, then an individual institution could compare its gender and ethnicity profile against both the general population and also against its local and student population. Certainly from a point of view of BME student attainment, there is often a significant difference in the diversity mix of the staff who lead and teach in universities and the student body.

For another view on these results, have a look at the registrarism blog by Paul Greatrix.