Tag: Making

  • Making a sustained case for international student mobility

    Making a sustained case for international student mobility

    Today on the HEPI blog, Professor David Phoenix OBE and Dr. Katerina Kolyva explore how England’s post-16 education system can move beyond competition to create a more integrated, collaborative approach that benefits learners, local economies, and national prosperity. You can read the blog here.

    Below, colleagues at the University of Surrey explore the evolving landscape of global student mobility, highlighting innovative programmes and making the case for a new approach to student placements.

    • Professor Amelia Hadfield is Associate Vice-President for External Engagement and Founding Director of the Centre for Britain in Europe, and Liz Lynch is International Mobility Manager, both at the University of Surrey.

    In recent years, the UK’s governments have developed new initiatives such as the Turing Scheme, the Taith Scheme in Wales, and the Scottish Government’s Scottish Education Exchange Programme (SEEP). These mobility programmes aim to support students’ global experiences. While they have undoubtedly provided valuable opportunities for students – particularly for those from disadvantaged backgrounds – what is truly needed is a longer-term commitment from government to sustain and expand these life-changing opportunities.

    At the end of February, the annual Global Mobility conference hosted by Universities UK International (UUKi) brought together higher education professionals and thought leaders to explore the latest developments in global student mobility and what the future looks like. The conference showcased how universities are leveraging these funding opportunities to create meaningful and impactful programmes. However, it also highlighted the significant challenges faced by UK institutions, particularly in the aftermath of Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic, the UK’s withdrawal from Erasmus+ and the ongoing financial pressures on both universities and students. These factors have created a complex landscape, making investment in international mobility more crucial than ever.

    The Impact of Mobility on Student Outcomes: Insights from UUKi Research

    During the conference, UUKi presented early-stage findings from their latest research, Gone International: A New Generation, conducted in collaboration with Jisc and the Northern Consortium. While the data revealed a significant decline in the number of students going abroad, perhaps reflecting the impact of recent global challenges, there remains strong evidence of the benefits to students. Reaffirming 2019 findings, the data continues to show students participating in mobility programmes not only attain higher degrees but are also more likely to earn higher salaries, secure professional-level jobs and experience lower unemployment rates. The research underscores the important role of global mobility in fostering social mobility.

    Nevertheless, while those of us working in the sector already understand the intrinsic value of international experiences, having concrete data to back up these claims strengthens the case for continued support and expansion of such opportunities. The University of Manchester, for example, has been evaluating the impact of its international mobility programmes on student outcomes, and the findings have helped raise the profile and importance of these opportunities across their institution. This kind of evidence-based approach is essential for ensuring that the sector – and governments – remain committed to facilitating global mobility for students.

    The Broader Benefits of International Mobility

    The British Council highlights the broader societal benefits of international student mobility, particularly in fostering cross-cultural understanding and long-term relationships between nations. By participating in mobility programmes, students develop cross-cultural competence, language proficiency, and global perspectives – all vital skills for success in today’s interconnected world. Inbound mobility, in particular, contributes significantly to the UK economy, with international students bringing cultural diversity, innovation, and fresh perspectives to campuses. These exchanges also build cross-cultural networks, which can endure long after students return to their home countries, fostering greater trust and understanding between nations and supporting the UK’s soft power overseas.

    All of this is in addition to the economic benefit that stems from the UK’s ability to attract international students, as discussed recently on the HEPI blog.

    Blended Mobility: Enabling flexibility and accessibility

    Blended mobility programmes represent a forward-thinking solution for making global education more accessible and flexible. Cardiff Metropolitan University, for example, has embraced a hybrid model supported by the Taith funding, combining one week of virtual learning with one week of physical mobility. This approach not only maintains the essence of cultural exchange but also offers students the flexibility to engage in international experiences that might otherwise be logistically or financially out of reach. The combination of virtual, blended, and physical mobility opens doors for students who might not be able to commit to a full-term study abroad programme, making global learning more inclusive and scalable.

    Whilst the Turing Scheme in its current form does not include blended mobility, the recent reduction in minimum duration to 14 days is a positive step towards providing greater accessibility for students. Hopefully, in future years, blended mobilities and shorter 7-day mobilities could be incorporated into future Turing projects, taking the impactful examples from both Taith and Erasmus+ as evidence of the value and enabling engagement from the most disadvantaged and underrepresented groups.  This, along with funding for staff mobility (offered by both Taith and Erasmus+), will only serve to enhance Turing overall.

    Surrey’s Approach: Empowering Students through International Mobility

    At the University of Surrey, we are committed to increasing the participation of our students in a range of international opportunities, whilst simultaneously expanding the international dimension of the student experience at our Guildford campus. In this respect, placement training options, study abroad opportunities, enhanced ‘global and cultural intelligence’ and ‘collaborative online international learning’ (COIL) content in degree pathways, as well as our Global Graduate Awards, ‘international’ is necessarily widely defined, and ‘mobility’ can take place intellectually, culturally, and socially, as well as just physically,

    Mobility also brings together traditional approaches to cross-border opportunities with enhanced approaches to supporting new demographics. A key strategic objective at Surrey, therefore, is focusing on access for underrepresented groups. We target Turing funding and additional grant funds to students who meet Surrey’s widening participation criteria to address inequality amongst underrepresented groups who may wish to experience international mobility but are unable to do so without grants. The portfolio of both longer-term and shorter mobility options we have developed facilitates equal access for all. As previous placements have illustrated, longer-term mobility provides deeper cultural experiences and learning opportunities for those able to commit to a full semester/year abroad. Shorter options can widen access for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and underrepresented groups.

    Through their international experiences, our students build global academic and professional networks and improve their job prospects. They return to Surrey as confident, resilient, and globally minded individuals, prepared to tackle the challenges of tomorrow’s world. Feedback from students who participated in Surrey’s Turing 2023 project shows the impact mobility has on their personal and professional development. 94% reported an increase in intercultural awareness, and 93% felt the experience enhanced their employability and professional skills.

    Looking Ahead: The Future of Global Mobility

    The global mobility landscape is changing, with rapid technological advancements and a growing emphasis on inclusivity and sustainability. At Surrey, we are embracing technological innovations that will enhance both the student experience and the efficiency of mobility programme management. Process automation, for example, is helping streamline administrative tasks, freeing up resources to better support students. We are also starting to use virtual reality (VR) to promote international opportunities, allowing students to virtually explore campus life abroad. Future opportunities for blended learning, as well as the incorporation of COIL projects within the curriculum, will nurture the skills necessary for students to engage with the world and develop the confidence and curiosity needed to thrive in an interconnected society.

    By incorporating data-driven approaches, we will continue to assess the impact of our mobility programmes, identifying areas for improvement and ensuring that our offerings align with both institutional and student goals. As the sector evolves, collaboration and innovation will be key in ensuring that all students can access transformative international experiences.

    Source link

  • Making Higher Ed’s Back Office More Efficient and Student-Centric

    Making Higher Ed’s Back Office More Efficient and Student-Centric

    Facing challenges in enrollment, retention, or tech integration? Seeking growth in new markets? Our strategic insights pave a clear path for overcoming obstacles and driving success in higher education.

    Unlock the transformative potential within your institution – partner with us to turn today’s roadblocks into tomorrow’s achievements. Let’s chat.

    Source link

  • Supporting Non-Major Biology Students: Making the Classroom YOUnique – Faculty Focus

    Supporting Non-Major Biology Students: Making the Classroom YOUnique – Faculty Focus

    Source link

  • Making space for commuter students

    Making space for commuter students

    Residential living at university has been prevalent since the 15th Century, originally as a way to instil discipline and promote a moral education amongst students.

    University College London’s founding in the 1820s as the first non-residential UK university disrupted this tradition. However, debates around the correct model of living have continued ever since.

    The Robbins Report in 1963 described the “educational and social advantages of living away from home” and it was often understood that the desire to live in halls was to emulate the “Oxbridge ideal.”

    The rise of 1960s plate glass universities, with new on-campus halls led the way for the expected “way of being” for university students.

    As recently as 2019 the Augar Report stated “leaving home to go to university is a deep-seated part of the English culture.”

    Clearly not much has changed.

    Across my time as a student and working in higher education, it was always apparent that space is crucial to the student experience for commuter students where they don’t have a residence on campus.

    Whilst the debate around commuter students has shifted in recent years with the introduction of commuters into the Equality of Opportunity Risk Register, more holistic support is needed.

    In fact, making space for commuter students is not just about their teaching and learning but it’s also about accommodating their extracurriculars and social lives.

    As rising numbers of commuter students challenge the historical ideas of what students should look like, how can institutions make space for commuters on campus?

    The rest of the student experience

    Arriving at university, it became clear I was one of two commuter students in my cohort of around 200 and that this was going to create problems for me.

    The extra curricular student experience was defined by student society socials and trips, socialising in halls and consuming alcohol on nights out.

    It was awkward when the first question I’d always get asked in first year was “what halls are you in?”

    Skip forward to my final year dissertation, I investigated the barriers to social engagement for commuter students at Leeds University.

    My research findings from six interviews with current commuter students found participation in social activities was difficult for many for financial, transport, religious and other reasons.

    We respectively think a lot about supporting commuter students’ experience of teaching and learning on and off campus but the student experience isn’t just limited to the classroom.

    Issues included last trains home being too early, spaces of engagement centred around halls, hidden costs to participate such as additional meals or transport and hygiene barriers (sleeping on sofas and not having their toiletries).

    Commuter students have often been invisible in the way institutions treated them, and we struggled to find each other due to the stigma, with constant questioning by peers “don’t you feel like you’re missing out?”

    Rush hour socials

    As a student, finding people to support the creation of the Leeds University Commuters’ Society was challenging.

    From my own experiences of imposter syndrome and othering, it was essential to create a society to address the needs of this group and advocate for further inclusion.

    I founded the Leeds University Commuters’ Society to find others with shared experiences, to share travel tips, support wellbeing and hold “rush hour” socials.

    Through my dissertation research, I also explored commuter students’ sense of belonging. I found commuter students who worked for the university in part-time roles, such as ambassadors, had a stronger sense of belonging and pride. The society also boosted feelings of belonging for the students, and some had found lifelong friends on their course who they didn’t realise were commuter students.

    Finding space

    The pandemic shifted working patterns for many staff, plus the opening of a new building on campus freed up space. The society campaigned for a common lounge for commuter students.

    The Student Ideas Fund granted us £5000 to create the lounge, originally on a two-year pilot basis. The lounge contains a refurbished social area with a games table, TV, kitchen, lockers and private study space.

    The kitchen offers students the opportunity to save money on lunches and evening meals, as students previously relied on eating out or consuming to feel comfortable in a cafe.

    The lounge is now a permanent feature of campus and is visited on campus tours and mentioned at open days.

    Where there’s space in residential halls, the University of Leeds team are consulting with commuter students about opening a commuter hotel, offering stays between 1-14 nights, at budget prices.

    Commuter students would then be able to participate in a range of activities like attending society socials, concerts, theatre, sports events, and staying the night before a morning exam.

    By giving commuter students a space, either a common room, lounge or even a temporary bed for a night in a hotel, it gives them autonomy and agency to fully participate in the wider student experience.

    They can participate in the things that make university enriching without being at a disadvantage.

    The narrative around commuter students has shifted significantly since the Robbins and Augar report with commuters being included in more Access and Participation Plans in England. However, cost of living pressures are pushing even more students to consider commuting and more still needs to be done.

    Making spaces on campus for commuter students is one way of enabling them to have a more enriching and wide-reaching student experience.

    Institutions could find spare spaces to give to commuter societies, advertise them as commuter lounges or utilise spare rooms to offer short stays for commuter students. Above all, listening to what commuter students want is the best way of including and further supporting this group.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students. Click here to see the other articles in the series.

    Source link

  • Making an impact at scale

    Making an impact at scale

    The path from early promise to widespread impact requires one thing and one thing only: scalability – the capacity to grow and expand in a robust and sustainable way. Put simply: you can only change the world at scale.

    John List

    To tackle inequality in higher education, we need scalable interventions. The interventions that make the biggest difference will be those that we can successfully expand from a small group to a much bigger one.

    Across many policy areas, ideas that appear promising after being tested at a small scale often have a much lower impact when expanded. Existing evidence suggests the majority of interventions – somewhere in the range of 50% to 90%  – will have weak effects when scaled. This is what the economist John List terms a ‘voltage drop’: ‘when an enterprising idea falls apart at scale and positive results fizzle’.

    Interventions in higher education are frequently designed at either the module or school level, with the intention to eventually scale up. Often, interventions are started by a single enthusiastic practitioner, who then tries to scale up the intervention later on.  For example, a student support programme may go from being implemented within the school of psychology to across the whole institution. Similarly, policymakers may seek to scale an idea that was successful at one institution by implementing it across a range of other institutions.

    As a result, higher education emerges as a prime area where we should consider the intended scale of implementation from the outset. While many interventions struggle to scale, List argues this challenge is surmountable by building into our processes an understanding of five key factors that impede scaling.

    1. False positives

    The first major cause of voltage drops is the prevalence of false positives: concluding there is a significant effect when there is not. False positives can arise in a manner of ways, but we can split them into three categories: statistical error, human error, and fraud.

    We can go a long way to addressing this trifecta of false positives by embracing the open science movement. Key tenets of this approach include pre-registration of trials, independent evaluation, and open publication of data and code. Opening our research up in this way not only helps to prevent fraud (more prevalent than we might think in academia) but also encourages more collaboration with peers and enables others to build on your work.  

    2. Know your intended audience

    When testing your intervention, consider whether this initial group is representative of the broader population you hope to impact. If the intervention is not designed for only one group, we should not test it with only one group.

    For example, say we trial an intervention with Engineering students before rolling it out across the institution. This could cause difficulties if Engineering students are different from the wider population we are interested in. It may be that the intervention only works on our sampled population (in this case Engineering students) and no longer works when we roll it out to the entire student population. 

    3. Spillovers

    Interventions often give us evidence of what works at a small scale, but it is difficult to anticipate how this could change when an intervention becomes a large-scale movement.

    This is particularly important when we look at scaling interventions from one institution to many. We should consider that the positive effects of an intervention at the institution level may disappear once the programme is scaled further. For example, consider a career guidance programme that improves graduate outcomes at an institution. When rolled out across the country, it may alter the dynamics of the graduate labour market in such a way that the original benefits are negated.

    4. Is the success due to the practitioner, or the idea?

    We should consider whether the intervention, as tested, accurately reflects the characteristics it will have when deployed widely.

    The key analogy here is one of chefs and ingredients. If the reason behind a restaurant’s success is its ingredients, it will be more likely to scale well, as the ingredients can be scaled across many branches. But a restaurant will struggle to scale if its success is down to the unique magic of the chef.

    Similarly, an intervention may fail to scale if we can mainly attribute its positive impact to a practitioner’s individual brilliance at a specialised skill: the talented practitioner cannot be so easily scaled. 

    5. Rising costs

    If the costs grow disproportionately with the intervention, it will struggle to scale. For example, at a small scale, it may be relatively easy to find an effective practitioner who can deliver the intervention as it was intended and have a high impact on students.

    But, as we’ve seen, if the success of a programme rests on the talent of practitioners, this is unlikely to scale well. As the intervention scales and hires more staff, finding staff who can have the desired impact will become increasingly difficult and expensive.

    Moving towards having an impact at scale

    It is a worthwhile pursuit to make incremental but meaningful changes that improve the lives of students. Many practitioners, not to mention students themselves, will be able to attest to the difference a small-scale intervention can have on a student’s life, helping to break down barriers, narrow gaps and open up doors.

    But to move the dial on inequality in higher education, we should build considerations around scaling into our interventions. In doing so, we can move our focus towards building an evidence base that helps us make a much larger change. By making this move, we can realise List’s powerful assertion: ‘you can only change the world at scale’.

    Source link

  • Students making changes on transport

    Students making changes on transport

    Before being elected as a sabbatical officer, I was a commuter student at my university for 5 years.

    Over that time, the price of the single student ticket increased gradually from £1 to £1.70. It doesn’t sound like a lot but it soon adds up.

    It had a huge impact on my studies. I reduced the number of days I spent on campus as I often did not have the funds to afford it. Eventually, I had to find a part-time job to cover the costs which were easily in their hundreds for each year.

    In 2021, following a campaign from youth activists, the “Zoom pass” was introduced in Sheffield, a travel pass often advertised to students that offers discounted tickets and fares to 18–21-year-olds. Sadly, I was already too old.

    I watched the service get drastically reduced, the timetable became more inconsistent and the prices of student tickets got increasingly more expensive. And on top of all this – the bus would never even arrive on time.

    Commuter students are entitled to the same learning opportunities and experiences that university offers.

    Commuter students make up a large proportion of our student population at Sheffield Hallam. In fact, we make up over 55 per cent. Add to the mix that 57 per cent of our students are also mature and more students are working than ever and you’re left with a huge cohort of students who are struggling to afford to attend teaching on campus and who are too busy and tired to engage in campaigning.

    The university has made steps to adapt to the needs of our diverse student body – a move towards more online or hybrid teaching, a condensed timetable with longer hours over fewer days. But students are still struggling. The solution must be to make transport cheaper.

    Time to campaign

    In the last academic year, Hallam Students’ Union launched its third iteration of the cost of living survey and its results were damning.

    We created a set of recommendations that would enable us to develop student support and lobby for positive change, at a local and national level, to help ease the burden on our students.

    For our “Cheaper Transport Campaign,” we committed to lobbying the South Yorkshire Mayoral Combined Authority (SYMCA), those responsible for economic development, transport and regeneration of South Yorkshire, for cheaper transport for students.

    We want:

    1. The Combined Authority to make the “Zoom pass” available to all students across South Yorkshire, regardless of age, on buses and trams
    2. A reduction in fares overall

    In the meantime, we promoted our campaign on our social media platforms, asking students to share their commuter experiences, with the help of a small cash incentive – the winner having the next few months of their travel expenses paid for.

    Eventually, with thanks to our Vice Chancellor, we were finally able to set up a meeting with our officer team and the South Yorkshire Mayor, Oliver Coppard in October. We discussed all the good stuff: the importance of affordable transport for Hallam students, the student testimonies we had collected, as well as the requests laid out in our campaign.

    Since our meeting, the Mayor has opened a public consultation on taking back control of South Yorkshire’s buses through franchising. Bus franchising will give SYMCA powers to decide what routes buses take, when and where they operate, the quality and reliability of the service, as well as the price of fares.

    With decentralised decision-making, things can happen faster – local people better understand local issues and can find local solutions.

    Ten foot testimony

    We began brainstorming how to engage commuter students, including students that use public transport to travel to placements, with the public consultation. But public consultations are boring and commuter students are time poor.

    We needed to mobilise, build student support and solidarity to get people to engage with public policy decision-makers and sign the consultation. How do you get students to be active citizens in the local transport agenda?

    I enlisted my good friend and fellow artist, Johnsey, to help us facilitate an outreach event to garner some energy, excitement or at least some interest around bus franchising.

    The ten foot testimony, we would call it. We secured a huge piece of paper on the floor, in the entrance of our main university building, inviting students to write their public transport experiences.Two student officers stood on a long piece of paper with feedback from commuter students on

    It was really simple, and I was worried students simply wouldn’t care. Fortunately, passers-by wanted to contribute (staff included) and the ten foot testimony became twenty feet in no time at all.

    While the testimony itself is no good to the Mayor, we had the opportunity to speak to so many students, encouraging them to sign the consultation.

    We successfully managed to engage students in the conversation, had a fun time doing it, and now have a lovely, long and bright piece of documentation to show for it.

    Many students feel disenfranchised when it comes to decision making in their towns and cities. We firmly believe that they should have an active say in how decisions are made and how it impacts them.

    Next stop, success

    The public consultation closed a few weeks ago, and it might be a while before we hear the official result and the following decisions made on bus franchising.

    Recently, one of our largest bus providers in Sheffield, First Buses, announced that they would be keeping the price of the student single fare at £1.50, following the bus fare cap rising. Not only that, but they extended the eligibility of the student ticket for all of South Yorkshire, not just Sheffield. We are hopeful that Stagecoach will follow suit.

    By making commuter students visible, we were able to gather their voice and campaign for more affordable and accessible travel. Whilst we’re not there yet, we’ve engaged students as active citizens in transport policy and displayed the benefits of devolution in practice.

    When it comes to decision making on transport, universities and their student unions can play a huge part in lobbying for an improved commuter student experience. It’s easy for their voices to go amiss in policy making when they are time poor, busy, not on campus or simply don’t think anything will happen fast but the sector can play a role in empowering students to have a more accessible, affordable and sustainable commuter student experience. It’s not just limited to the classroom, it’s also about getting there.

     

    This blog is part of our series on commuter students, click here to read more.



    Source link

  • 6 steps to a future-focused blueprint: Supporting students in making career decisions

    6 steps to a future-focused blueprint: Supporting students in making career decisions

    The OECD’s (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) study on teenage career uncertainty underscores a growing concern: 40% of 15-year-olds lack clear career plans, a figure that has risen by over 50% since 2018. This uncertainty is linked to poorer employment outcomes in adulthood, particularly for students with lower academic performance. The study emphasizes career development programs can significantly reduce this uncertainty by helping students explore interests and align education with potential career paths. However, data from PISA 2022 shows that too few students participate in such initiatives, suggesting a need for broader access and promotion of these programs. 

    The issue that frequently comes to the forefront is the potential disconnect between and among CTE programs, counseling, and academic standards-based classrooms. In conversations, all appear to believe in the interconnectedness of these three areas, yet they are often separate and distinct for a variety of reasons. Helping students prepare for their lives after school and for potential careers needs to be an integral part of all school’s educational vision. This is often demonstrated in graphics and words through a school’s mission, vision, and Portrait of a Graduate. 

    How can educators bring CTE, counseling, and standards-based classrooms together? Let’s look at six strategies through the lens of a curricular-focused learning environment: 

    Facilitating Career Exploration, Awareness, & Application 

    Counselors play a vital role in the success of all students, helping students identify their strengths, interests, and values through a variety of tools including interest assessments and career inventories. They provide one-on-one or group sessions to help students explore specific careers tied to their interests. These activities can guide students toward careers featured in classrooms, courses, and programs. 

    Interdisciplinary Career Units 

    Career exploration and application opportunities can be easily woven into all subjects. What students are learning in the classroom and the passions they are discovering can be connected to potential careers they may want to consider. For example, math classes could include performance tasks around topics such as financial literacy or architecture, requiring teamwork and communication to solve problems. Language Arts related careers could include a grant writer, social media marketer, public relations specialist, or a journalist with projects and lessons easily connected with essential content related to reading, writing, speaking, and listening. 

    Partnerships between CTE programs and general education teachers can help align these activities with broader learning goals and within and across career clusters and pathways. 

    Project-Based Learning (PBL) 

    Incorporating an instructional strategy such as PBL is something that is common for CTE teachers. Using this pedagogy and incorporating future-ready skills can involve students working on complex, real-world problems over an extended period, requiring them to think critically, collaborate, and communicate effectively. Defined utilizes career-themed projects that can be integrated across subjects, such as developing a marketing plan in business classes or designing solutions for community issues in science. These experiences make skills relevant to future careers while aligning with academic standards. 

    Embedded Communication Training 

    Incorporating oral presentations, team discussions, research, and report writing into assignments across all subjects ensures consistent practice. Weaving active communication strategies into learning activities helps students practice collaboration and interpersonal skills. Projects that require students to do presentations and/or build communication documents that are informative or persuasive promote formative and summative assessments of communication skills. 

    Assessment & Reflection 

    Self-reflections and teacher feedback through the lens of reflecting on the real-world connected processes and content applications to careers through their learning can be powerful “a-ha” moments for students. The use of rubrics for evaluating skills such as problem-solving can help teachers guide students as they practice skills throughout their learning experience. Evidence of practice and growth over time can also be part of an evidenced-based portfolio for the student. Bringing these ideas together can help students understand the interconnectedness between careers, content, skills, and projects. 

    Collaboration with Employers & Community Partners 

    Schools can establish partnerships with local businesses to provide interactive career days, mentorship programs, and soft skills training. Exposing students to the workplace through job shadowing, internships, or part-time work enables them to understand real-world career dynamics. When possible, incorporating on-site visits through field trips can help introduce students to different work environments and let them see first-hand the connections between school-based learning and future opportunities. 

    Bringing professionals into classrooms for workshops or mentorship allows students to practice skills in real-world contexts. Additionally, business and industry experts can work collaboratively with a curriculum team to create performance tasks, projects, and virtual internships to help students bridge the world of work, academic standards, and skill development and practice. 

    To learn more about how you can support and engage your students in career-connected deeper learning, please click here. 

    Source link

  • Becoming a professional services researcher in HE – making the train tracks converge

    Becoming a professional services researcher in HE – making the train tracks converge

    by Charlotte Verney

    This blog builds on my presentation at the BERA ECR Conference 2024: at crossroads of becoming. It represents my personal reflections of working in UK higher education (HE) professional services roles and simultaneously gaining research experience through a Masters and Professional Doctorate in Education (EdD).

    Professional service roles within UK HE include recognised professionals from other industries (eg human resources, finance, IT) and HE-specific roles such as academic quality, research support and student administration. Unlike academic staff, professional services staff are not typically required, or expected, to undertake research, yet many do. My own experience spans roles within six universities over 18 years delivering administration and policy that supports learning, teaching and students.

    Traversing two tracks

    In 2016, at an SRHE Newer Researchers event, I was asked to identify a metaphor to reflect my experience as a practitioner researcher. I chose this image of two train tracks as I have often felt that I have been on two development tracks simultaneously –  one building professional experience and expertise, the other developing research skills and experience. These tracks ran in parallel, but never at the same pace, occasionally meeting on a shared project or assignment, and then continuing on their separate routes. I use this metaphor to share my experiences, and three phases, of becoming a professional services researcher.

    Becoming research-informed: accelerating and expanding my professional track

    The first phase was filled with opportunities; on my professional track I gained a breadth of experience, a toolkit of management and leadership skills, a portfolio of successful projects and built a strong network through professional associations (eg AHEP). After three years, I started my research track with a masters in international higher education. Studying felt separate to my day job in academic quality and policy, but the assignments gave me opportunities to bring the tracks together, using research and theory to inform my practice – for example, exploring theoretical literature underpinning approaches to assessment whilst my institution was revising its own approach to assessing resits. I felt like a research-informed professional, and this positively impacted my professional work, accelerating and expanding my experience.

    Becoming a doctoral researcher: long distance, slow speed

    The second phase was more challenging. My doctoral journey was long, taking 9 years with two breaks. Like many part-time doctoral students, I struggled with balance and support, with unexpected personal and professional pressures, and I found it unsettling to simultaneously be an expert in my professional context yet a novice in research. I feared failure, and damaging my professional credibility as I found my voice in a research space.

    What kept me going, balancing the two tracks, was building my own research support network and my researcher identity. Some of the ways I did this was through zoom calls with EdD peers for moral support, joining the Society for Research into Higher Education to find my place in the research field, and joining the editorial team of a practitioner journal to build my confidence in academic writing.

    Becoming a professional services researcher: making the tracks converge

    Having completed my doctorate in 2022, I’m now actively trying to bring my professional and research tracks together. Without a roadmap, I’ve started in my comfort-zone, sharing my doctoral research in ‘safe’ policy and practitioner spaces, where I thought my findings could have the biggest impact. I collaborated with EdD peers to tackle the daunting task of publishing my first article. I’ve drawn on my existing professional networks (ARC, JISC, QAA) to establish new research initiatives related to my current practice in managing assessment. I’ve made connections with fellow professional services researchers along my journey, and have established an online network  to bring us together.

    Key takeaways for professional services researchers

    Bringing my professional experience and research tracks together has not been without challenges, but I am really positive about my journey so far, and for the potential impact professional services researchers could have on policy and practice in higher education. If you are on your own journey of becoming a professional services researcher, my advice is:

    • Make time for activities that build your research identity
    • Find collaborators and a community
    • Use your professional experience and networks
    • It’s challenging, but rewarding, so keep going!

    Charlotte Verney is Head of Assessment at the University of Bristol. Charlotte is an early career researcher in higher education research and a leader in within higher education professional services. Her primary research interests are in the changing nature of administrative work within universities, using research approaches to solve professional problems in higher education management, and using creative and collaborative approaches to research. Charlotte advocates for making the academic research space more inclusive for early career and professional services researchers. She is co-convenor of the SRHE Newer Researchers Network and has established an online network for higher education professional services staff engaged with research.

    Author: SRHE News Blog

    An international learned society, concerned with supporting research and researchers into Higher Education

    Source link

  • Making better decisions on student financial support

    Making better decisions on student financial support

    By Peter Gray, Chief Executive and Chair of the JS Group.

    As the higher education sector starts to plan its next budget cycle and many may need to make savings, there is a concern about the impact of any cuts on students and how this could negatively affect their university experience and performance.

    Universities are bound to look at a range of options to save money, especially given the stormy operating context. But one less-often highlighted aspect of university finances is the cost (and benefit) of the additional financial support universities devote to many of their students. Through cash, vouchers and other means, many universities provide financial help to support with the costs of living and learning.

    Using Universities UK’s annual sector figures as one indicator, roughly 5% of universities’ overall expenditure has gone towards financial support and outreach, equivalent to around £2.5 billion. Although some of this money will inevitably not go directly to students themselves, this is still a significant amount of spending.

    There are, naturally, competing tensions when it comes to considering any changes to targeted financial support. With significant financial pressures on students, exacerbated by the cost-of-living crisis, there is always a very justifiable case for more money. However, with the significant financial pressures universities are facing, there is an equally justifiable case to control costs to ensure financial sustainability. Every university has to manage this tension and trade-offs are inevitable when understanding just how much financial support to give and to whom.

    In many respects, the answers to those questions are partially governed by Access & Participation Plans, with the clear intention that these financial interventions really change student outcomes. However, properly measuring those outcomes is incredibly difficult without a much deeper understanding of student ‘need’ – and understanding these needs comes from being able to identify student spending behaviour (and often doing this in real-time).

    It always amazes me that some APPs will state that financial support ‘has had a positive impact on retention’ and some quite the opposite and I think part of this is a result of positioning financial support from the university end of the telescope rather than the student end.

    Understanding real and actual ‘need’ helps to change this. Knowing perhaps that certain groups (for example Asylum Seekers or Gypsy, Roma, Traveller, Showman and Boater students) across the sector will have similar needs would be helpful and data really help here. Having, using, and sharing data will allow us to draw a bigger picture and better signpost to where interventions are most effectively deployed so those particular groups of students who need support are achieving the right outcomes.

    Technology is at hand to help: Open Banking (for example) is an incredible tool that not only can transform how financial support can be delivered but also helps to build an understanding of student behaviour.

    Lifting the bonnet and understanding behaviour poses additional questions, such as: When is the right time to give that support? And what form should that support take?

    I am a big proponent of providing financial support as soon as a student starts. When I talk to universities, however, it is clear that the data needed to identify particular groups of students are not readily available at the point of entry and students’ needs are not met. Giving a student financial support in December, when they needed it in September, is not delivering at the point of student need, it is delivering at the point where the university can identify the student. I think there is a growing body of evidence that suggests the large drop off in students between September and December is, in part, because of this.

    Some universities in the sector give a small amount of support to all students at the start of the year, knowing that by doing so they will ensure that they can meet the immediate needs of some students. But clearly, some money must also go to those who do not necessarily need it.

    However, and this is where the maths comes in, if the impact of that investment keeps more students in need at university, then I would argue that investment is worth the return. And the maths is simple: it really doesn’t take many additional students to stay to have a profoundly positive impact on university finances. Thus it is certainly worthy of consideration.

    To me, this is about using financial support to drive the ultimate goal of improving student outcomes, especially the retention of students between September and December, which is when the first return is made, where the largest withdrawal is seen and where the least amount of financial support is given.

    As to the nature or format of support: of course, in most cases, it is easier to provide cash. However, again, this is about your investment in your student, and, for example, if you have students on a course with higher material and resource costs, or students who are commuting, then there is an argument to consider more in-kind support and using data to support that decision.

    Again, I am a proponent of not just saying ‘one size fits all’. Understanding student need is complex, but solutions are out there. It is important to work together to identify patterns of real student need and understand the benefits of doing so.

    My knowledge draws on JS Group’s data, based on the direct use of £40 million of specialist student financial support to more than 160,000 students across 30 UK universities in the last full academic cycle.

    I have also looked at the student views on such funding and there is an emerging picture that connects student financial support with continuation, participation and progress. A summary of student feedback is here: https://jsgroup.co.uk/news-and-views/news/student-feedback-report-january-2025/

    The real positive of this is that everyone wants the same goal: for fewer students to withdraw from their courses and for those students to thrive at university and be successful. We need to widen the debate on how financial support is delivered, when, and in what format to draw together a better collective understanding of student need and behaviour to achieve that goal.

    Source link

  • Old-school flip phones are making a comeback as some look for simpler lifestyle (CBS Mornings)

    Old-school flip phones are making a comeback as some look for simpler lifestyle (CBS Mornings)







    Higher Education Inquirer : Old-school flip phones are making a comeback as some look for simpler lifestyle (CBS Mornings)




    Source link