Collaborative research into the student experience A methodological argument with examples

1. Collaborative research into the student experienceA methodological argument with examples Mantz Yorke, Lancaster University & Nick Hooper, Yorkshire & Humber East Lifelong Learning Network EAN Conference, York St John University 23 June 2009

2. The basic argument • Practice-focused research is burgeoning • It’s often conducted in isolation • Hence cross-linking and cumulation tend not to • happen, save after the event • So the full potential value of the work isn’t reached

3. The basic argument, ctd • If colleagues work together from the start, • greater benefit can accrue: • (a) the evidence-base is widened • (b) there is benchmarking potential • (c) research capacity can be built • If those responsible for funding studies were to be • more strategic in their approach, they might well • obtain greater value for the money that they invest

4. Developing capacity • Researching into the student experience is challenging • There is a range of possible research methods • (quantitative and qualitative) • There are ethical considerations • There’s a need to appreciate the limitations of the • different methodologies • Working collegially aids the development of expertise • (particularly important where there is little or no tradition of • undertaking research)

5. Example 1: Part-time students’ experience Access report via www.heacademy.ac.uk > research & evaluation > surveys • Hardly any empirical data • PT HE is an important policy area • Yet not even modest funding available • 11 Post-92 universities agreed to contribute • (staff time & expenses) in exchange for data with • benchmarking potential • Ethics: BERA Guidelines used • Postgraduate and undergraduate students surveyed • via the web: 2871 responses

6. Example 1: PT students’ experience, ctd • Weak response rate: better than nothing, hence need • for caution in drawing conclusions • Responses from 1130 PG; 1170 BA/BSc; 530 Other • Generally positive reactions, but … • 2 areas of particular concern: • (a) ‘infilling’ on FT courses • (b) organisation & management for PT students • Some institutions used the data for enhancement

7. Example 1: Some access-related findings • Little difference on rating items (SES; gender) • Tendency to be more positive with increasing age • Differences here & there between ethnic groups, e.g. • - Asian students had more difficulty with home study • and were most likely to say academic work was hard • - Black and Asian students were more positive about friendship • - White British were least worried about financing • ‘Disability declared’ were less positive about • - programme organisation • - assessment scheduling • - computing and library resources • - financing, • but numbers are small, so caution needed

8. Example 2: PT FD students’ experience • FDF funding • Mixture of HE and FE, hence approach via 6 LLNs • Web-based survey (for speed, cost); hard-copy Plan B • 27 institutions/organisations participated • Responses from 372 students (a few more to be added); • dominated by Education

9. Example 2: PT FD students’ experience, ctd Respondents’ demographics Gender Male59; Female302 Age 21-30: 104; 31-40: 114; 41-50: 111 SES Managerial 162; Intermediate 66; Supervisory etc 55 Ethnicity Almost all ‘White British’ Disability declared? 23

10. Example 2: Gender

11. Example 2: Previous HE

12. Example 2: Socio-economic group

13. Example 2: Dependants

14. Example 2: Disability

15. Example 2: Age

16. Example 3: FD & HNC students’ experience • YHELLN is a partnership initiative • Increasing opportunities for vocational learners in HE • 4 Research themes: • Employer engagement • Widening participation & student diversity • Learner constituency • Progression • Within these, a study set up of the usefulness of FD, HNC experience

17. Example 3: FD & HNC students’ experience • Not much known about how useful FD and HNC • have been to individuals in the world of work • YHELLN funding • 3 institutions involved to date • Web-based survey (for speed, cost) • Responses from 35 FD and 19 HNC students to date

18. Example 3: FD & HNC students’ experience, ctd Respondents’ demographics Gender Male24; Female30 Age Up to 30: 24; 31-50: 24; Over 50: 6 SES Managerial 24; Intermediate 11; Supervisory etc 10 Ethnicity All ‘White British’ Disability declared? 1

19. Example 3: FD & HNC students’ experience, ctd • HNC students generally more positive about their • experience. However, the data were collected from • some of the very first FD students • FD students more positive about • - Balancing academic and other commitments • - Discussing academic work with fellow students • - Making friends via the course • - The benefit accruing to them from the course • 16 FD and 8 HNC students went on to higher study • (roughly equivalent proportions)

20. Example 3: FD & HNC students’ experience, ctd Who paid? (More than one response possible) FD (N=35) HNC (N=19) Fees Ancillary Fees Ancillary Self 20 31 6 18 Employer 7 1 8 2 Local Authority 12 6 5 3

21. Example 3: FD & HNC students’ experience, ctd Usefulness of the qualification FD Yes 20; No 5; Equivocal 4; No comment 6 HNC Yes 10; No 4; No comment 5

22. Some concluding points • These three examples are primarily quantitative surveys, • but collaboration isn’t limited to quantitative work • Their findings will be of value not only to those whose focus • is access matters, but also to a variety of interested parties • Collaboration • enhances ownership • accentuates the chances of benchmarking • can open up questions spanning institutions and sectors • can help to build research capacity • potentially improves value for money • However, collaboration takes time and effort to set up!